The special election for Anthony Weiner's old seat

By Richard K. Barry




I don't know that many people are paying a lot of attention to the special election that will take place on September 13th for New York's 9th congressional district, but things are tighter there than they should be. 



This is the seat vacated by Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner for conduct unbecoming a congressman. You remember.



To provide some context, Weiner held the seat from January of 1999 until his resignation in June of this year. He won seven terms, never receiving less than 59 percent of the vote. The seat was previously held by Democrat Chuck Shumer, who went on to run successfully for the U.S. Senate.



In a Siena poll conducted Aug. 3-8, Democratic candidate David Weprin is leading Republican Bob Turner by a 48 to 42 percent margin. With a 4.4 percent margin of error, that makes things close.



One interesting note here is that Joe Lieberman has endorsed Weprin, a move meant to counter former New York City Mayor Ed Koch's endorsement of Turner. In general, the media has been trying to characterize the special election in this heavily Jewish Brooklyn and Queens district as a referendum on President Obama's Israel policies, which Koch has characterized as not sufficiently pro-Israel.



In giving his endorsement in late July, Lieberman, a strong supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship, said:

While David Weprin can be counted on to fight for the safety and security of the State of Israel, we can also rely on him to protect the seniors and working families in Brooklyn and Queens.

Steve Greenberg, a pollster for Sienna, said what pollster always seem to say, which is that voter turnout will be key.

Which campaign will do a better job of identifying their voters and getting them to the polls [will be important] because, as we know, special elections tend to have low voter turnout. Probably fewer than 20 percent of the registered voters in the 9th congressional district will actually go to the polls and vote.

Turner is a retired media executive who ran unsuccessfully against Weiner in the general election last year.



Assemblyman Weprin is a former New York City councilman who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination to be comptroller in 2009.



Just what the Democrats need right now: A close race in an historically Democratic district.



Thanks, Anthony.



(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Gov. Christie, still unpopular in his home state

By Richard K. Barry

Just because I like to point to anything that counts as bad news for that pompous bully governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, I note a recent Public Policy Polling survey on how Christie would fair against Obama head-to-head in the state. The results were 56 percent for the president, 39 percent for the pompous bully.

It is true that Obama won New Jersey by 15 points in 2008, and the state hasn't gone Republican since 1988, as Daily Kos points out, but isn't Christie supposed to be a cut above?

His current approval rating? 43 percent approve of the job he's doing and 53 disapprove, so maybe not.

I know that a lot of people think Christie could win the White House for the GOP if he would only run, but if the guy can't even come close to carrying his own state, that might be an overly optimistic assessment.

For the record, Obama beats all comers in "The Garden State" with the following breakdown: Romney (53-39); Bachmann (55-35); Pawlenty (54-32); Cain (55-29); and Palin (59-33).

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Is the Huntsman campaign coming to an end?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

If you're at all familiar with the views expressed at this blog, you'll know that we're generally quite impressed with former Utah Governor and U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman.

I've even called him "Huntsman the Formidable," the one Republican who should really worry President Obama (but who won't, because Republicans are too stupid to nominate him).

It's not that we agree with him on the issues -- despite some renegade positions on, say, civil unions, and despite his admirable civility, he's ardently conservative and very much in line with Republican orthodoxy not so much of the present but at least of the recent past -- it's that he's something of a throwback to when Republicans weren't entirely insane. And, yeah, that makes him look good.

He's in the race for the Republican nomination for president, but he's way back and without a hope. The latest RCP average has him tied for ninth, with the ridiculous Rick Santorum, in what is generally an embarrassingly weak field. He polls at just 2 percent -- hardly a formidable showing.

And now his campaign manager, Susie Wiles, has resigned:

In an interview with the Miami Herald, Wiles said it was "just time" for her to move on.

"I signed up to get it started," she said. "It's like a phase. This morning I said it's time to move on."

Sounds to me like she was pushed out, likely because the campaign is doing so poorly.

Now, Huntsman still has some fairly big names still on board, including McCainiacs John Weaver and Matt David, the latter of whom also worked for Schwarzenegger in California. (David will replace Wiles.) And he's raising a lot of money. But at this point it looks like he's positioning himself for 2016, not competing seriously for 2012. And while it may not be wise to read too much into the departure of a single campaign staffer, even the top one, this change is hardly a positive sign.

I suppose that change could bring improvement, but I doubt it, not with Romney and Bachmann so far ahead and not with his inability so far to catch on in any significant way. Huntsman's campaign is already doomed to failure, and I suspect it won't be around much longer.

Just another day in the rise and eventual fall of Michele Bachmann

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Let's scan the headlines:

-- Bachmann surges into the lead nationally, according to a new PPP poll, 21-20 over Romney, though a new WSJ/NBC poll has her a strong second to Romney but still well back, 30-16. The takeaway, I think, is that Romney is still the frontrunner but seems to be hitting a ceiling, and a fairly low one at that, while Bachmann has emerged as the most viable alternative. The different results here could be attributed to the fact that the latter poll includes Perry, who has not yet entered the race. Bachmann stands a chance in a one-on-one against Romney but would have much more trouble winning a three-or-more-way race, particularly with a strong conservative like Perry draining her support.

-- According to The Daily Caller, Bachmann "frequently suffers from stress-induced medical episodes that she has characterized as severe headaches. These episodes, say witnesses, occur once a week on average and can 'incapacitate' her for days at time. On at least three occasions, Bachmann has landed in the hospital as a result." The sources are anonymous, but, needless to say, Bachmann's health is a concern -- or at least should be.

-- Basically, Bachmann appears to suffer from severe migraines. But she says they wouldn't be a problem: "'Let me be abundantly clear -- my ability to function effectively has never been impeded by migraines and will not affect my ability to serve as commander in chief,' [she] said in a statement. She described the headaches as 'easily controlled with medication.'" 

-- ABC News's Brian Ross, a big-time reporter, tried to ask Bachmann about her condition at a campaign rally in South Carolina yesterday. According to Michael Crowley at Time's Swampland, who witnessed the violent incident: "Ross dashed after Bachmann, repeatedly asking whether she had ever missed a House vote due to a migraine. She ignored him. Ross pursued her into a parking area behind the stage. Her aides grew alarmed. When Ross made a beeline for the white SUV waiting to carry Bachmann away, two Bachmann men pounced on him, grabbing and pushing him multiple times with what looked to me like unusual force. In fact, I have never seen a reporter treated so roughly at a campaign event, especially not a presidential one."

-- Crowley makes a good point: "To zoom out for a minute, what's most interesting here isn't Bachmann's headaches. She's still a long way from the nuclear football, and unless the story takes some darker turn, I don't see why a seemingly manageable battle with migraines would be a game changer for her candidacy.

The more pertinent question may have to do with Bachmann's preparedness for the campaign circus. Running for President, at least in its early retail stage, requires a willingness to answer inconvenient questions in settings more chaotic and unpredictable than the cable-television interviews to which she is accustomed. The trail is a messy place where reporters will swarm you. It's definitely not always fun -- and can be enough to give even a seasoned candidate a migraine. The question raised this afternoon is whether Bachmann is ready for it."

-- I would say that while I think Bachmann has fairly impressive political skills, just as, say, Palin does, and can hold her own on the talk-show circuit, she, like both Palin and Romney, tends to want to avoid reporters whenever possible, and, more to the point, avoid having to answer uncomfortable questions that may require her to deviate from her talking points. I'm not saying she's not ready for it, but this sort of thing doesn't play well with the media, particularly those on the campaign trail and who demand, if only to do their jobs, more than mere talking points, and is communicated to the public as a major defect (which it is). Thuggery, of the kind Ross was exposed to, hardly qualifies as a suitable response. We know she's an extremist, but running away from reporters and using goons as a shield puts her in Palin territory. The media often excuse extremism, particularly extremism of the right, but they don't excuse being excluded. This could turn out to be a major problem for her.

There you go. Another day, a heavy dose of Bachmann all over the media. In the absence of Palin, she's, well, Palin, the sexiest (in media terms) thing going. She's not just crazy, she's doing well in the polls, fast becoming a viable contender for the GOP presidential nomination.

Attention is being paid. Understandably so.

The Pottery Barn Rule for the economy: You broke it, you own it (that means you, George).

By Richard K. Barry

Back in June, Matthew Yglesias wrote about how annoyed some Democrats were that President Obama wasn't doing a better job of reminding people that the dismal state of the economy was George W. Bush's doing. Yglesias went on to say that despite the criticism it would appear that a strong majority of Americans do understand that Obama was handed a large pile of crap and do put a lot of the blame on W.

As an NBC/WSJ poll indicated:

The American public isn't blaming Obama for the current economy, with more than six in ten respondents still saying he inherited the country's economic problems from his Oval Office predecessor. Also, while a combined 47 percent believe George W. Bush and his administration are "solely responsible" or "mainly responsible" for the current economy, just 34 percent in the poll say the same of Obama and his administration. 

Brendan Nyhan responds by saying, I think correctly, that we shouldn't put too much stock in this. As he writes:

Campaigns are giant engines of political accountability that drive election results towards what we would expect given the fundamentals. For better or worse, Obama will own the economy by next fall, though it is possible that he will be judged less harshly since Democrats just took back control of the presidency in 2009.

All of that is true, but it's also true that George W. Bush's name rarely gets mentioned as an example of good economic stewardship when Republicans are pointing to their own political role models. It always about Reagan (which is an entirely different discussion).

It's also true that the Republican narrative is about how Obama made things worse, which is another way of saying that their guy made things bad to begin with. This is what the GOP is left with: "Our guy was a fucking abomination, but your guy didn't clean up his mess fast enough." Yeah, that's an argument.

Yes, the guy currently holding the job wears the bad economy on election day. But I think Nyhan is also right when he says that Obama will be judged less harshly because of the magnitude of the mess he was handed and the relatively limited amount of time he has had to deal with it. The key here is that there are degrees to which one is held responsible for anything.

Politics is always about getting votes on the margins, about winning marginally more votes in areas where you are strong and losing marginally fewer votes in areas where you are weak.

So, yes, Obama will wear the economy, but 60 percent of electorate saying that a Republican president created the mess to begin with is going to make it that much easier to pick up those marginal votes than if there really was no one else to legitimately blame.

Simple point, and not a very exciting thesis, but it's true and important.

By the way, haven't seen a lot of those George W. Bush billboards lately with that annoying message: "Miss Me Yet?" (heh, heh)

No, George, we still don't miss you. Not even Republicans, apparently.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Bachmann surges past Romney in Iowa

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The RCP Average still has Romney on top in Iowa, if only barely, but a new poll by The Iowa Republican has Bachmann in the lead for the first time, 25 to 21 over Romney, with Pawlenty and Cain well back at 9.

To some of us -- Richard Barry and me, for example -- this isn't at all surprising. We have long thought that Bachmann has impressive political skills (whatever her right-wing craziness) and could do well in this race, particularly in the absence of another viable candidate on the right. And she's doing well generally in a one-on-one race against Romney, a race without, say, a Perry or a Palin to drain some of her conservative support.

Romney is still the frontrunner and perhaps the favourite. He has a solid ground campaign across the country, will win New Hampshire, has the support of much of the establishment (and monied interests that back the GOP), and is a solid if uninspiring candidate, particularly with the economy at the center of the debate.

But Bachmann could easily win Iowa, surprise with a strong showing in New Hampshire, and then, should she be more or less alone on the right, cruise into South Carolina with the wind at her back.

The concerns for Romney are many, but one of them may be that he has a fairly low ceiling. He has about one-quarter support of Republicans nationally right now, but what if his ceiling isn't all that much higher than that? What if the opposition to Romney is so strong, mainly from the grassroots (Tea Party, "social conservatives," etc.), that he just can't get over the hump in a one-on-one race against a more bona fide conservative like Bachmann? And it's possible that it will eventually turn into just that, if Pawlenty fails to emerge as a compromise candidate and if the conservative vote isn't divided (that is, if Perry and Palin don't run and if the conservatives in the race now, namely Gingrich and Santorum, continue to lag way behind with little support). (I'm counting Huntsman out altogether, though in my opinion he's by far the strongest of the bunch.)

Indeed, as Jon Chait noted yesterday, Bachmann is a bit like Obama in 2007:

Obama trailed badly in the national polls throughout 2007. But he had high favorability and seemed to do well among those voters most attuned to the campaign, which suggested that as elections neared and voters paid more attention, he had the potential to win over voters who were not paying attention months and months before any vote.

And, indeed, Bachmann's "lead expands when the sample is confined to voters paying a lot of attention." Which is to say, Republicans like her more the more they get to know her, with her support coming to a great extent from those who are most engaged in the process -- the people, that is, who decide primaries, the hardcore grassroots.

Will this continue? Maybe not. Maybe Bachmann has her own ceiling. Maybe another big-name conservative will get in the race. Maybe Romney would beat her in a one-on-one race. But what's evident, it seems to me, is that Bachmann is for real.

Values over victory

By Nicholas Wilbur

Republicans care more about morality than they do victory, according to a recent public opinion poll, and both God and the Democratic Party are rejoicing in the news, although for different reasons.

A McClatchy-Marist poll found that 38 percent of prospective Republican voters want a GOP nominee who shares their values, compared to 15 percent who prefer a candidate who can win.

McClatchy-Marist poll

Winning isn't everything, as they say, but in most cases people just say that as a justification for losing. The primary season is still six months away, leaving pols in D.C. scratching their heads wondering whether this is early onset defeatism or the overzealous idealism of a truly principled, pious Christian demographic.

Depending on their proximity to the Bible Belt, conservative voters either dislike or vehemently loath President Obama. In the eyes of the millions of people who watch Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio, all of America's ills are attributable to the "liberal fascism" and wealth-distributing socialism that they are told are trademarks of modern progressivism.

If that’s true, how then is it possible that those same people care less about defeating Obama than they do about having a candidate who shares their beliefs? Are they not getting the message? Were Glenn Beck's twisted chalk-board conspiracies too complex for the right-wing masses to understand the grave importance of ousting Obama from power?

For Democrats, who hope to keep the White House and maybe pick up enough seats in Congress to take back majority control of the House of Representatives, a confirmed date for the coming rapture wouldn't come close to beating this news.

Polls show a consistent dissatisfaction with the stubborn partisanship and bitter ideological battles that have become the norm in the barbed-wire arena of political discourse.

If Republicans won't settle for anything less than a saint in 2012, their less-than-enthusiastic support for the GOP nominee will be reflected in voter turnout. If their candidate fails the piety test, they might not show up at all.

The GOP needs a miracle candidate in 2012, someone who can rile the Tea Party base, rally the social conservative base, and yet still manage to persuade the independents that Change didn't happen and Hope doesn't float. They must be passionate enough to excite the far right wing in the primary race and yet sane enough not to disenfranchise moderates, offend women, and enrage middle class laborers in the general election.

It's a tall order even under the most ideal conditions. With a Mormon and an evangelical cheese head topping the polls in the nomination race, divine intervention may be the only solution.

Luckily for conservatives, they've demonstrated the depth of their morality and the strength in their principles that if anyone's prayers are answered, it will definitely be theirs first. 

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Pawlenty, desperate for attention as ever, says science "in dispute" over homsexuality

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Back at the end of May, I wrote about the desperation of Tim Pawlenty. While he had been seen as a possible "bridge" candidate linking the somewhat moderate GOP establishment with the party's more right-wing grassroots base (both Tea Party and "social conservative"), he just wasn't catching on.

He was, and remains, fairly well-liked by pundits (including influential conservatives like George Will) and other political and media insiders, but his numbers, reflecting not just a lack of name-recognition but a lack of support broadly, have been consistently poor. The latest RCP national average has him at just 4.5%, eighth in the race behind Romney (the clear frontrunner at 25%), Perry (who may not run), Palin (who almost certainly isn't running), Bachmann (who has emerged as a strong second to Romney), Cain, Paul, and, yes, even Gingrich (who is running a joke of a campaign). He's sixth in Iowa (with Perry not included), close to his homestate of Minnesota and somewhere he should be doing well (or where he must do well to have any shot at the nomination), at just 6.7%, ahead of Paul but behind the others and well back of Romney (19.3%) and Bachmann (12.7%). And he's even further back in New Hampshire, in seventh (if you include Giuliani, who may jump in but likely won't do well) and a long, long way back fro Romney (34.5%).

It's not for lack of trying, though. Pawlenty has, thus far, proven to be a lackluster and often embarrassing candidate unwilling to take on Romney face-to-face, but he's done a great deal to try to appeal to the base, including coming out as a social conservative (i.e., theocrat, bigot) on issues like same-sex marriage and DADT and proposing a ridiculous trickle-down tax/budget plan designed to suck up to Grover Norquist, the Tea Party, and other anti-government movers and shakers on the Republican right.

It's just that nothing seems to be working, and so he's still pathetically grasping for attention, trying to emerge possibly as a third option to Romney and Bachmann. And he's doing that by continuing his "social conservative" assault of homosexuality, asserting on Meet the Press this morning that science is "in dispute" over whether being gay is genetic or a choice:

GREGORY: Is being gay a choice?

PAWLENTY: Well, the science in that regard is in dispute. I mean, scientists work on that and try to figure out if it's behavioral or if it's partly genetic –

GREGORY: What do you think?

PAWLENTY: Well, I defer to the scientists in that regard.

GREGORY: So you think it's not a choice? That you are, as Lady Gaga says, you're born that way.

PAWLENTY: There's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic. We don't know that.

Of course, you can always find one or two scientists, perhaps paid by some right-wing institute, to dispute what the (non-partisan) scientific community has come to accept as established fact, based on all the available research, and thereby to cast doubt on consensus (and to suggest that there's "no scientific conclusion." (This is how conservatives, including Pawlenty himself, dismiss climate change, for example.) As Think Progress notes in this case:

In fact, there is no dispute among health professionals. All major medical professional organizations agree that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American Psychological Association, the world's largest association of psychological professionals, describes sexual orientation as "a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors." There is considerable evidence to suggest that biology, "including genetic or inborn hormonal factors," plays a significant role in a person's sexuality.

Is the evidence conclusive to the point of absolute certainty? No, but science rejects absolutism and is never certain about anything. That's the point of science, completely ignored by those on the anti-science right. Is there any "dispute." Yes, if, as with climate change, it comes from those on the right who, largely for partisan/ideological reasons, disagree with the vast majority of the scientific community and reject the overwhelming amount of evidence against them. But there is certainly no dispute among reputable scientists that genetics plays an essential role in determining sexual orientation and that being gay is not a matter of choice.

Of course, none of that matters to Pawlenty, who's really just trying to score some political points by situating himself as an ignorant bigot worthy of support from the GOP base. Will it work? No. His ship has sailed -- if there ever was a ship at all. I, like many others, thought he had a good shot at the nomination if only as a suitable second choice for many across the Republican spectrum. But there's no denying just how bad a candidate he's been, nor just how uninteresting and uninspiring he is. He can push his fiscal/economic bona fides all he wants, but he'll never be Romney, who in Republican circles has extensive credibility in that area. He can push his social conservatism, faux or otherwise, all he wants, but he'll never be Bachmann, who has a long record of advocating extremist right-wing positions on hot-button social issues. And while he could still hang around in a Romney-vs.-Bachmann race, he just doesn't seem like a suitable compromise candidate anymore.

Okay, he's still got a shot, given how weak the Republican field is, but it's longer than ever now. Which may only exacerbate his desperation and push him to say more and more extremist and ridiculous things.

Is Paul Ryan drinking his own bath water on Medicare reform?

By Richard K. Barry

I used to work with a very experienced campaign manager, who had a colorful term to describe the phenomenon of politicians or their surrogates actually believing the spin they put on things. This isn't about making a case for something you truly think would be good policy, despite the fact that most don't agree with you. It's about taking a position that has limited support and believing that the majority must be with you simply because you've fallen in love with your own reasoning or, perhaps, because those in closest proximity are always telling you how right you are.

He used to say, "let's be careful not to drink our own bath water."

I thought of this when I read Greg Sargent's post recently about Paul Ryan being in total denial about how unpopular his Medicare plan is. As Ryan said:

Those polls don't describe it well. When the plan is described accurately, it actually polls very well.

Uh, no. That's just not true.

Sargent runs through polls by Bloomberg, CBS, Pew, and The Washington Post, all showing strong opposition to the plan when described as replacing traditional Medicare so that individuals buy their own private insurance with the help of government subsidies. In other words, when the plan was described as exactly what it is, those polled rejected it. To be sure, the language of the question asked varied from poll to poll, but the description of the program was clear and consistent in each.

Only when the question was unclear, as was the case in a New York Times poll, did a plurality support the Ryan plan. Here, when people were asked if they would support a proposal to create "a program in which the government helps seniors purchase private health insurance," they were marginally okay with that idea. But if we aren't talking about replacing the current system, we are not being accurate, which makes the Times response more or less meaningless.

Despite polling that finds privatizing Medicare consistently unpopular, Ryan thinks that Americans would support the idea. Despite proof that when people understand the Republican plan accurately, they reject it, Ryan's thinks the opposite is true.

Honestly, I don't know how to categorize his attitude. Does he truly believe that there is another level of understanding that Americans have not yet realized that will make them supportive of his plan? That something will kick in?

Or does he really know that most don't support his plan but hope that over time he can sway them?

Or does he have such confidence in the fact that he's right about Medicare reform that he has convinced himself that the majority of Americans are already with him? Is he drinking his own bath water?

I actually think Ryan is a true believer, who is only confused by the facts. How else do we explain his comments? Let's just hope he continues to deny reality and that he keeps chugging from the tub he's sitting in and, more importantly, that he has lots of company from fellow Republicans. Now, there's a picture you won't be able to get out of your head for a while.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Apathy and loathing on the 2012 campaign trail

By Nicholas Wilbur

Barack Obama may be leading Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republican presidential hopefuls in one-on-one matchups, but if the GOP finds a generic Republican without a face, a name, a history or a legislative record, Obama is toast.

A new Gallup poll shows Obama as the 5-point underdog to "a Republican," which the investigative reporters at Wonkette point out would spell trouble for the incumbent "if there were any Republicans running for president."

Previous surveys put Romney and Tim Pawlenty 6 and 11 points behind Obama, respectively. But when asked to vote for "a Republican," Obama's edge is reversed.

It seems the Republican-leaning poll respondents are making the allusive statement that they prefer no candidate to any currently being offered. That, or they're hoping that a real Republican will emerge before primary season officially kicks off in February 2012 – someone who embodies the conservative principles of the Republican Party but who needn't pander to corporations, zealots, bigots, and radicals as a prerequisite for public office. Also in a perfect world, bees wouldn't have stingers, trees would rake their own leaves, Democrats would have spines, and wannabe voters would have to pass aptitude tests in order to cast a ballot.

Understandably, nobody is quite sure how to interpret these contradictory polls. How ought the media report a series of surveys showing that grocery store shoppers preferred paper over plastic in one poll but in another poll preferred "no bags" to paper bags?

The electorate either is confused or apathetic. In either case, a more telling survey might ask the question, "Does it matter who is elected president in 2012?" It wouldn't be any more revealing than the polls we have now – one wouldn't need the experience of a legislative whip or the clairvoyance of a fortune teller to make an educated guess about how the data would turn out – but it might serve as a reminder to our elected officials that, as a wise man once said, the government isn't only "of the people and by the people," it's also supposed to be for the people.

The fact that nearly one in five Americans doesn't have a preference when it comes to electing the next president should be a clear sign to every candidate – whether an incumbent or a challenger, a Democrat or a Republican, a socialist or a teabagger – that we expect more than from our elected representatives than the options they're currently providing.

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Polls don't matter

By Nicholas Wilbur

The pendulum is a-swingin', the tides are a-turnin', and the times they are a-changin'.

After six months of near-daily reminders of what it means to have Republicans in power, the short-sighted masses are slowly gravitating back toward the Democratic Party.

Gallup's latest party affiliation poll shows a six-point spread between Americans who identify as Democrats versus Republicans, up from a tie in August, 2010. It is the highest margin since October 2009.

As any politician will tell you (when he's down), polls don't matter. That said, Gallup's study is based on a data pool of 30,000 poll respondents and has a margin of error of plus or minus one, making refutation impossible despite what one might predict will be many fervent attempts by those whose political reputations, platforms, and ideologies are negatively reinforced by these statistics.

Unlike the philosopher, who, if wise, would reflect on causation and his individual role in knowingly or unknowingly, directly or indirectly, creating or influencing such an outcome, the Republican, if he acknowledges this data at all, if wise, would respectfully decline to entertain the notion that there are consequences in life – that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction – and instead sidestep all accountability while casually rifling through his bottomless satchel of excuses in search of theater props to wave in the air as a distraction for his audience before launching into an emotional and heartfelt homily about victimization at the hands of the unpatriotic legislative demagogues on the left.

It has been said that a good politician is like an honest burglar (Henry Louis Mencken). But stupid the politician is not, which is to say that any Republican who reacts to Gallup's statistics will not do so publicly, and likely not voluntarily even if cornered privately.

What this latest polling data forecasts for 2012 would, in theory, depend entirely on the party affiliation of its interpreters, but that assumes that there are interpreters willing to say what this data forecasts for 2012. As of this writing, there aren't – and for good reason.

A Democrat who highlights such studies as a case-in-point argument about what happens when ideologues spend eight months actively disenfranchising essentially every voting demographic in the country runs the risk of appearing to the public as the proverbial flogger of long-departed steeds.

The Republican who highlights such statistics must lie, and therefore run the risk of appearing to the public as the proverbial politician.

A nonpartisan observer, by contrast, could look at this data, ingest it, absorb it, reflect on it, internalize it and eventually conclude – through pure, objective reason – that these statistics are not surprising in the least considering that the party who is losing ground among prospective constituents has spent the last eight months attacking labor union rights, attempting to redefine rape, seeking legislation to kill family planning agencies and public radio, fighting to undermine a woman's right to choose, withholding federal disaster relief, trying to destroy the regulatory oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency, denying insurance to the unemployed, lauding policies that discriminate against homosexuals in the military, and threatening a government shutdown every time tax cuts for the rich are questioned or massive budget cuts are ridiculed as irresponsible policy during a still-sputtering economic recovery. Add to this list of priorities the recent push by congressional Republicans to privatize Medicare, and even party leaders should have no trouble understanding why voters are migrating toward the Democratic Party.

I'm not that non-partisan observer, mind you. I believe that being apolitical constitutes patriotic neglect, particularly in an excessively bisected political environment such as this, when so much is on the line and where, as the average American can attest, there is so little left to lose. But then again, I'm no patriot – at least not by modern standards.

The truth is, no one can read into these poll numbers and say that Democrats will continue to see an increase in supporters, that this data represents the beginning – an awakening, if you will – of some leftward movement that will lead to President Obama's re-election, or that this is evidence that Democrats have solid odds in taking back majority control of the House in 2012.

Photograph of the Republican candidate who can
beat Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race.

There are only two things that are empirically evident from this poll: One, that Democrats have nearly doubled their 2011 favorability average in Gallup's party affiliation rating over Republicans since Republicans took majority control of Congress, even without the popularity boost President Obama (and the Democratic Party by proxy) received after killing Osama bin Laden; and Two, that, based on their previous actions, Republicans are likely to ignore the results of this single poll just as they did every "isolated incident" of public opinion conducted since the midterm election, whether it shows that 78 percent of Americans supported the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," that 59 percent support increasing taxes on the rich, that only 20 percent believe abortion should be illegal, that 61 percent support labor union rights, that a consistent and strong majority oppose privatizing Medicare, or that Americans support the Democratic Party to the Republican Party 45 to 39 percent.

The pendulum may be a-swingin', the tides may be a-turnin', and the times may be a-changin', but that doesn't mean our elected representatives in Congress are anywhere near reaching a consensus about which party the electorate trusts most to run the country and determine domestic and fiscal policy.

After all, polls don't matter.

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson's chances for re-election

By Richard K. Barry 

In my never ending quest to get a better handle on the more interesting political races coming up in 2012, I now turn my attention to Democrat Bill Nelson's Florida senate seat.

It's always interesting to see a politician who won the last time by such an overwhelming margin be considered in either a toss-up situation, as both The Cook Report and Roll Call have it, or as only marginally well placed to win, as Rothenberg sees it.

Nelson beat Republican Kathleen Harris in 2006 by a margin of 60.3% to 38.1%. You may recall that, as Florida Secretary of State, Harris played a pivotal role in stealing the presidential election for George W. Bush in 2000 and was, on account of that, a polarizing figure in the campaign before self-destructing. But I digress.

The point is simply that Nelson won handily in 2006 and yet is getting little respect from the leading political prognosticators in the business.

So what do we know?

Well, I think the first thing you'd have to notice is that the relatively new Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott is one of the least popular politicians in the country, and that can't hurt an incumbent Democratic senator's chances in 2012 in the same state. Scott is not alone as an unpopular Republican governor, but he has distinguished himself as a particularly loathsome hack, if I do say so myself.

As Bloomberg reports:

Scott took office in January and by April his disapproval among voters doubled after he called for cutting spending in schools and health care to close a $3.8 billion deficit. In May, his popularity was at the lowest in five months.

So, there's that working in Nelson's favour.

What else can we say?

A Quinnipac University poll released on May 26th had Obama's approval rating in Florida at 51%, admittedly fueled by the killing of Osama bin Laden, but a bump's a bump.

Accord to The Miami Herald, the poll also indicated that the Republicans may have quite a task ahead of them in their attempt to unseat Senator Nelson:

Nelson holds leads of between 20 to 25 points over three hypothetical contenders: former U.S. Senator George LeMieux, Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos and former state Representative Adam Hasner.

It is no doubt early days in determining who the GOP challenger will be, but those are not good numbers for any of them.

Although, Peter Brown, the assistant director at Quinnipac, says that while Nelson appears to be in good shape, he does not win 50% against any of the three putative contenders. For some reason unclear to me Brown calls 50% the "magic threshold" that signals an incumbent will be difficult to beat. It is a nice round number. Maybe that's it.

Whatever the reason, that could be why the major handicappers are calling it a toss-up or very nearly. But Nelson still seems awfully strong especially considering one more number from the poll indicating that he has an approval rating of 51%, including 39% among Republicans.

I do note that a Public Policy Polling poll from December 2010 had Nelson with a job approval rating of just 36%, a disapproval rating of 33%, and another 31% not sure. This, of course, would have been back in the dark days after the disastrous midterm elections, but it does indicate a certain volatility amongst voters in The Sunshine State.

The same poll suggested that Jeb Bush would be the only Republican with a realistic chance of beating Bill Nelson, but, so far, apart from a Facebook page urging Jeb to run, I'm not finding much indication that Mr. Bush is so inclined. I suppose that could change.

Not for nothin', but, baring surprising developments, this race sure looks like the kind that hinges strongly on how well Obama ends up doing. In fact, we could say that about almost all of the Democratic senate races that are deemed close at this point, which may end up being good news for the Dems since I think Obama will do just fine in 2012.

Come to think of it, I'm not all that worried about Senator Nelson after all, no matter what Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg think. What do they know?

But in all seriousness, if you go back to just after the midterms, it seemed like it wasn't that hard to find people writing Nelson's political obituary and now not so much. I wonder how many twists and turns there will be on this one before November 2012? Maybe that's what Cook and Rothenberg know.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Today is the day for NY-26: Voters head to the polls in special election

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, it's today, at long last, the special election in New York's 26th Congressional District to replace Republican Chris Lee, who resigned earlier this year.

I wrote about the election here and here, but let me explain again what's going on here:

In a heavily Republican district in Western New York, the combination of a Tea Party challenger (Jack Davis) and a Republican who supported Paul Ryan's deeply unpopular anti-Medicare plan (Jane Corwin) have given the Democrat (Kathy Hochul) a great chance to win. Indeed, the latest polling gives Hochul a six-point lead over Corwin, 42 to 35, with Davis in third with 13.

It seems incredible, when you think about it, until you realize that this special election has essentially become a referendum of national proportions and a key indicator for where things might be headed in 2012. It's not all about Ryan and the Republicans' radical right-wing budget plans, as I've written, but there's enough of that to suggest that the Republicans may be in trouble, with voters coming to learn of those plans and turning away in disgust, particularly independents.

Sure, Corwin might very well win a head-to-head race against Hochul, but it would be close (as it is wrong to assume that she would pick up all of Davis's support), and, again, this is a heavily Republican district, a "safe" seat that should stay GOP. It would be enough, in a way, just for Hochul, or any Democrat, to put in a good showing, to make it a competitive race. The fact that she's well ahead in the polls is incredibly significant, both in local and national terms, the local and national essentially merging here.

And the fact that she might just win...

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. If you're in NY-26, make sure you get out to vote.

Let's hope Hochul, who certainly has our full support, pulls this out. It would be a great victory for her, as well as for the Democratic Party and for efforts to reject the right-wing Republican agenda.