Good news barfo (finally!)

[Denny Crane]

http://www.cookpolitical.com/node/7559

Hurricane GOP On The Way
By Charlie Cook
© National Journal Group Inc.

July 3, 2010

This column was originally featured on National Journal on July 3, 2010.

Imagine sitting in Washington's Verizon Center, listening blissfully to Carole King and James Taylor, thanks to a fast-thinking friend who managed to score four floor seats. For 50-somethings, it's a nice place to be. Then, as the concert is winding down, four pages of poll tables of a just-released survey pop up in your BlackBerry. They are jaw-dropping numbers, not inconsistent with what you had been thinking -- if anything more a confirmation of it. But the dramatic nature of the numbers brings the real world of politics crashing through what had been a most mellow evening.

The numbers were from the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted June 17-21 among 1,000 adults by pollsters Peter Hart (a Democrat) and Bill McInturff (a Republican). Among the registered voters in the survey, Republicans led by 2 points on the generic congressional ballot test, 45 percent to 43 percent. This may not sound like a lot, given that Democrats now hold 59 percent of House seats. When this same poll was taken in June 2008, however, Democrats led by 19 points, 52 percent to 33 percent.

That drop-off should be enough to sober Democrats up, but the next set of data was even more chilling. First, keep in mind that all registered voters don't vote even in presidential years, and that in midterm elections the turnout is about one-third less. In an attempt to ascertain who really is most likely to vote, pollsters asked registered voters, on a scale of 1 to 10, how interested they were in the November elections. Those who said either 9 or 10 added up to just over half of the registered voters, coming in at 51 percent.

Hart and McInturff then looked at the change among the most-interested voters from the same survey in 2008. Although 2010 is a "down-shifting" election, from a high-turnout presidential year to a lower-turnout midterm year, one group was more interested in November than it was in 2008: those who had voted for Republican John McCain for president. And the groups that showed the largest decline in interest? Those who voted for Barack Obama -- liberals, African-Americans, self-described Democrats, moderates, those living in either the Northeast or West, and younger voters 18 to 34 years of age. These are the "Holy Mackerel" numbers.

Among all voters, there has been a significant swing since 2008 when Democrats took their new majority won in 2006 to an even higher level. But when you home in on those people in this survey who are most likely to vote, the numbers are devastating. The NBC/WSJ survey, when combined with a previously released NPR study of likely voters in 70 competitive House districts by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican Glen Bolger, point to an outcome for Democrats that is as serious as a heart attack. Make no mistake about it: There is a wave out there, and for Democrats, the House is, at best, teetering on the edge.

To be sure, things could change in the four months between now and November 2. The GOP's failure to get Republicans to vote in the May 18 special election in Pennsylvania's 12th District underscores that the party can't just sit back and await spontaneous combustion in terms of turnout. Still, the potential is here for a result that is proportional to some of the bigger postwar midterm wave elections. These kinds of waves are often ragged; almost always some candidates who looked dead somehow survive and others who were deemed safe get sucked down in the undertow. That's the nature of these beasts. But the recent numbers confirm that trends first spotted late last summer have fully developed into at least a Category 3 or 4 hurricane.

Given how many House seats were newly won by Democrats in 2008 in GOP districts, and given that this election is leading into an all-important redistricting year, this reversal of fortune couldn't have happened at a worse time for Democrats.

 

[THE HCP]

Keep this shit off the OT page!

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Keep this shit off the OT page!

Why? It's certainly an OT thread.

 

[barfo]

Hart and McInturff then looked at the change among the most-interested voters from the same survey in 2008. Although 2010 is a "down-shifting" election, from a high-turnout presidential year to a lower-turnout midterm year, one group was more interested in November than it was in 2008: those who had voted for Republican John McCain for president. And the groups that showed the largest decline in interest? Those who voted for Barack Obama -- liberals, African-Americans, self-described Democrats, moderates, those living in either the Northeast or West, and younger voters 18 to 34 years of age. These are the "Holy Mackerel" numbers.

That's very poor analysis. Of course those who lost the last election are more interested than those who won.

The correct way to do this analysis is to compare the difference between 2010 and 2008 with the difference between 2002 and 2000, 1994 and 1992, 1982 and 1980, etc. Then we'd be able to see whether the change in enthusiasm is out of the ordinary, or merely what happens every time there is a new president of the opposite party.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That's very poor analysis. Of course those who lost the last election are more interested than those who won.

The correct way to do this analysis is to compare the difference between 2010 and 2008 with the difference between 2002 and 2000, 1994 and 1992, 1982 and 1980, etc. Then we'd be able to see whether the change in enthusiasm is out of the ordinary, or merely what happens every time there is a new president of the opposite party.

barfo

I think you miss the point. This is Clinton's pollster. Carville is involved (owner?) of the polling firm. And Cooke is a highly regarded political analyst. They're all saying the Democrats are going to lose the house. Cooke's saying it looks like the Dems will retain the Senate with a slim majority.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The dems are not going to lose the house. They have mastered the art of throwing an election and that alone will account for 5 or 6 seats. No, the GOP will make strides, but not take over the house.

 

[barfo]

I think you miss the point. This is Clinton's pollster. Carville is involved (owner?) of the polling firm. And Cooke is a highly regarded political analyst. They're all saying the Democrats are going to lose the house. Cooke's saying it looks like the Dems will retain the Senate with a slim majority.

Bad analysis is bad analysis no matter who does it. Is it stupidity, laziness, partisanship, or the desire to create a compelling storyline? The latter seems the most likely to me.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

The dems are not going to lose the house. They have mastered the art of throwing an election and that alone will account for 5 or 6 seats. No, the GOP will make strides, but not take over the house.

Agreed. I think the Democrats hold on to the House and Senate with slim majorities. Right now the Democrats' best friend is an incompetent Republican leadership.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think it's clearly been trending toward Republican control. Like, when Obama was elected would anyone have considered even slim majorities?

Right now the Republicans' best friend is that nobody knows for sure if they're less or more incompetent than the incompetent bunch that are running the govt. right now.

 

[julius]

Agreed. I think the Democrats hold on to the House and Senate with slim majorities. Right now the Democrats' best friend is an incompetent Republican leadership.

Isn't it sad that both D's and R's are run by idiots?

The worst thing that ever happened to the Republicans was the super conservative/religious right gaining unequal clout, and the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats was the fact they tried to think and it hurt their brains.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Isn't it sad that both D's and R's are run by idiots?

Sad indeed. Sad for us today and those who come after us for at least a generation or two.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGp8jzk4pJyawzEXFnuwO5C5vBMQD9GSVIP80

Obama spokesman says Democrats could lose House

(AP) – 4 hours ago

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's chief spokesman says it's possible that Democrats could lose their majority in the House this fall.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs says there's no doubt that enough seats are in play for Republicans to take control. Gibbs says the outcome of the fall vote will depend on whether Democrats wage strong campaigns.

Gibbs is echoing points that Obama has made political fundraisers this summer — that GOP apologies to oil giant BP and complaints about tighter Wall Street rules show how Republicans would govern.
Gibbs appeared Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's chief spokesman says it's possible that Democrats could lose their majority in the House this fall.

He says there's no doubt that enough seats are in play for Republicans to take control. Gibbs says the outcome of the fall vote will depend on whether Democrats wage strong campaigns.

Gibbs is echoing points that Obama has made political fundraisers this summer — that GOP apologies to oil giant BP and complaints about tighter Wall Street rules show how Republicans would govern.
Gibbs appeared Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

 

[Denny Crane]

Talk about dense...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39565_Page3.html

Liberals analyze their Obama 'despair'
By: Abby Phillip
July 10, 2010 05:38 PM EDT

For many liberals, this is the summer of their discontent.

Already disappointed with President Barack Obama’s ability to deliver on campaign promises, they now contemplate a slowing economic recovery and a good chance of Republican gains in November — two developments that could make enacting Obama’s agenda even more difficult.

Two recent essays framed the debate raging within the progressive community over why the promise of Obama’s candidacy has not lived up to their expectations — and how liberals should proceed in what they fear will be difficult months ahead.

In a 17,000-plus-word piece published in The Nation on Thursday, journalist Eric Alterman calls the Obama presidency “a big disappointment” for progressives and blames a broken system in Washington that he says allows the minority party to rule with impunity — and special interests and big money to dictate legislative policy.

“Face it,” he concludes, “the system is rigged, and it’s rigged against us.” His essay is subtitled: “Why a progressive presidency is impossible for now.”

But writing in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, editor Michael Tomasky counsels patience, arguing that American history has shown that change always takes time and continued effort against entrenched conservative opposition.

“The changes we want to see won’t happen in 18 months, or in two years, or four, or probably even eight,” he concludes in his article, “Against Despair.”

The essays suggest it is a time of reckoning for a liberal community whose relationship with Obama has had a series of ups and downs since the moment of hope and expectation when he claimed the presidency in Chicago’s Grant Park on Nov. 4, 2008.

“It’s not just really about Obama; it’s about the state of our country. Every day, you have a sense that people are wondering where this country is headed,” says Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation.

The elation of that night in 2008 quickly gave way to the realization that the No. 1 issue, the economy, and the ensuing fight over an $800 billion stimulus bill, would make Obama's agenda different from the one he had described in his campaign.

From the beginning, the stimulus bill was viewed as containing too many compromises in a futile attempt to garner Republican support. Economist and columnist Paul Krugman led the charge, arguing that the bill was not ambitious enough, containing too many tax cuts and not enough funding for infrastructure projects.

But the bill’s $800 billion price tag created a toxic environment for congressional Democrats when they began the long debate over health care, and many liberals viewed Obama’s compromises on the legislation as a betrayal. The low point may have been after the special election victory of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) in January, when the possibility of any health care legislation seemed lost.

“It’s open season on Obama, whom so many hoped would lead us out of the neoliberal wilderness,” Firedoglake blogger Les Leopold declared not long afterward. “He once was a community organizer and ought to know how working people have suffered through a generation of tax breaks for the rich, Wall Street deregulation and unfair competition. When the economy crashed, he was in the perfect position to limit the unjustified pay levels on Wall Street.

“Instead, we got a multitrillion-dollar bailout for Wall Street, no health care reform, no serious financial reforms whatsoever, record unemployment and political gridlock that will be with us for years to come.”

The bill’s passage was viewed as a major victory for the White House, but the reaction among progressives was mixed at best. Only 10 days after the House bill passed, Tomasky writes, “things on the liberal side were more or less back to the dour normal.”

“It simply took too long to pass health care,” says Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. “What should have been seen as an important progressive victory didn’t feel like it was as much of a victory because it just took so damn long.”

But the worst seems yet to come.

“The bad economy creates a mood in which everything looks a bit more bleak than it did before,” Dionne says. “The economy helps to create the less-than-wonderful poll numbers for Democrats, and it conditions the national mood — and all of that affects the way that progressives feel.”

The list of grievances includes a slew of agenda items yet to be meaningfully addressed: a climate change bill, immigration reform, “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Employee Free Choice Act, not to mention a war in Afghanistan many liberals oppose.

Yet some of the blame that once was put squarely on Obama and his White House staff has now shifted to a broken system where congressional Republicans have exerted power that does not rightfully belong to them.

“Whatever the motivation, it has become easier and easier for a determined minority to throw sand in the gears of the legislative process,” Alterman writes. “It is therefore no coincidence that the 40 Republican senators with the ability to bottle up almost anything in the Senate represent barely a third of the U.S. population.”

Tomasky sees this shift as an inevitable one that will eventually bring liberals around to the realization that the great periods of change — Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society — took place after years of effort and many setbacks.

Slower to come around to this view, Tomasky acknowledges, have been the vanguards of the liberal blogosphere: The Huffington Post, Firedoglake and, to an arguably lesser extent, Daily Kos.

“People have to work through stages like that before they get to the point where they say that ‘this is not exactly what we thought it would be, but let’s just deal with it,’” Tomasky told POLITICO. “I don’t know that the progressive community is at that stage yet, but people are getting there.”

Ironically, given the generally more pessimistic tone of his essay, Alterman sees a more immediate time of possibility than Tomasky: Obama’s second term, assuming there is one.

“This would be consistent with FDR’s strategy during his second term and makes a kind of sense when one considers the nature of the opposition he faces today and the likelihood that it will discredit itself following a takeover of one or both houses in 2010,” Alterman writes.

Still, others are wary of putting too much stock in the promise of 2012.

“I think that depends on what we build,” says Bob Borosage, president of the liberal Institute for America’s Future.

Borosage says that over the past 18 months, progressives have learned the hard way that they need to be more independent of the White House to realize the change they are seeking.

The remedy for the problems progressives face, Borosage says, lies in creating an equal and opposite force that can rival the enthusiasm of the tea party movement.

“If there is a progressive movement that is demanding change, driving the debate, challenging conservative Democrats and Republicans and challenging the White House, you might see a bolder agenda,” he says. “But it’s equally possible that this reform moment … that we miss it and conservatives come back with the same ideas they had when they drove us off a cliff.”

“It was always naive to expect a president to start a movement,” says Michael Kazin, a Georgetown University history professor and co-editor of the liberal magazine, Dissent. “It’s a little bit like expecting a chief executive to start a union.”

 

[Denny Crane]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/the-white-house-the-house-and.html

The White House, the House and the impact of a majority in the balance

When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told "Meet the Press" host David Gregory on Sunday that "there is no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control", he was, to many people, stating the obvious.

After all, political prognosticators -- from Charlie Cook to Stu Rothenberg and every talking head in between -- have noted (with varying degrees of certainty) that the House majority is clearly at risk for Democrats this fall.

Cook wrote late last month that the House was "teetering on the edge" of a control switch, adding: "There is a wave out there."

That's not to say, however, that Gibbs' words don't have an impact on things. They do. And here's a look at where (and how):

* Messaging: House Democrats were riding high from a messaging perspective over the last month thanks to impolitic comments by Reps. Joe Barton (apologized to BP) and John Boehner (the "ant" imbroglio) as well as Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele (Afghanistan as a war of President Barack Obama's "choosing").

Now, Democrats are being forced into a process conversation about whether or not their majority is in jeopardy -- a conversation that the House leadership did their damnedest to avoid by adopting a concerted strategy not to mention publicly the idea that control was at stake in the fall.

The counter-argument -- and, yes, this is politics so there is always a counter argument -- is that in acknowledging that the House could switch control effectively set the stakes for voters this fall.

Democratic consultant James Carville called the Gibbs' comments "brilliant" on "Good Morning America" this, um, morning, adding: "This is a time to say...you're not just casting a protest vote here."

A White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said that Gibbs' remark was an attempt to turn the midterms from a referendum on Obama -- not a good thing if today's Post/ABC poll numbers continue through the fall -- into a choice between Democrats and Republicans.

"Unless you put this choice in front of people, this election will be a referendum on him," promised the source. "You have to compare and you have to dramatize the stakes."

* Money: Despite a national political environment that is slanted badly against them, House Democrats have managed to retain financial dominance. At the end of May, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $28.6 million in the bank while the National Republican Congressional Committee had just $12 million on hand.

Republicans -- privately and, increasingly, publicly -- have made clear that their fundraising deficit is the biggest impediment to maximizing seat gains this fall. "We are going to be in a position to lose seats that we could win," one Republican House member told the Fix last week.

In the wake of Gibbs' comments, Republicans moved quickly to capitalize, using what the press secretary said as a validation that what they have been trying to sell to donors for months -- "give to us because we may be in the majority comes January" -- could actually come true.

(Make sure to read Politico's Jmart on how Republicans are making that case to the affluent lobbying community that populates K Street in Washington.)

One senior House strategist said that the timing of the comments could not have been worse as the third fundraising quarter, which spans from July 1 to Sept. 30, is the most critical of the year since media buys -- typically the costliest part of any campaign -- are made during this time. "The NRCC was struggling to raise enough money," said the source. "This is not a mistake we needed now."

The White House push back on this front is simple: anyone paying any attention at all -- and donors pay very close to attention -- already knew that House control was up for grabs this fall and, therefore, wouldn't be surprised to hear it from Gibbs. "I have a hard time subscribing to the the notion that saying a well-known fact is going to free up a lot of money," said a White House official.

One House Democrat, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said that while "Republicans will use the comment to their advantage with fundraising" it could also send a message to the Democratic base that "this is a high stakes election and they need get involved."

* Members: Members of Congress are a skittish lot. (You would be too if your job depended on the whims of roughly 500,000 people most of whom you have never -- and will never -- meet.) Comments like these from Gibbs add to the agita factor of Democratic Members who are already quite nervous about facing a volatile and, in pockets, angry electorate in the fall.

"The White House waving the white flag creates panic," said a senior House Democratic aide.

That said, the actual impact on these Members -- beyond the expected hand-wringing and carping -- is somewhat difficult to see. Filing deadlines have passed in all but four states (Wisconsin, New York, Hawaii and Delaware) and, after today, Wisconsin's deadline will pass.

That means that any House Democrat edgy about whether or not to seek re-election -- with VERY few exceptions -- can't back out now even if he or she wanted to.

And, it's also worth noting that Democratic Members have had ample evidence prior to Gibbs' comments that things in 2010 are not going to be as rosy as they were for the party in 2006 and 2008. Retirements by longtime stalwarts like Rep. David Obey (Wisc.) and Vic Snyder (Ark.) were a not-so-subtle acknowledgment of the difficulties any incumbent -- particularly a Democratic one -- faces this fall.

The broadest impact of Gibbs' comments is to make public the long simmering tensions between House Democrats and the White House. Some of this tension is, of course, inevitable since Obama is, ultimately, on a 2012 electoral calendar while House Democrats have only this November in mind.

But incidents like this one with Gibbs further widen the rift between the two sides and create suspicion about each side's motives. (One thing that might help defuse the situation: The $2 million that the Democratic National Committee transferred to a series of other party committees today.) That is not the sort of thing you want to be dealing with only 112 days before the November election.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...122374132154.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

GOP Sees Path to Control of Senate

WASHINGTON—Democrats for the first time are acknowledging that Republicans could retake the Senate this November if everything falls into place for the GOP, less than two years after Democrats held a daunting 60-seat majority.

Leaders of both parties have believed for months that Republicans could win the House, where every lawmaker faces re-election. But a change of party control in the Senate, where only a third of the members are running and Republicans must capture 10 seats, seemed out of the question.

That's no longer the case. The emergence of competitive Republican candidates in Wisconsin, Washington and California—Democratic-leaning states where polls now show tight races—bring the number of seats that Republicans could seize from the Democrats to 11.

Democrats now control the Senate 59-41—after the death of Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was replaced by Republican Sen. Scott Brown—including two independents who usually vote with them. That means Republicans need 10 seats to take a 51-49 advantage.

Republicans would have to win virtually every competitive race to retake the Senate, without losing any seats of their own—clearly an uphill climb. The trouble for Democrats is that many trends are against them. Surveys show that Republicans are more motivated than Democrats to go to the polls, and that voters are looking for new leadership in Congress.

"I think there is definitely a chance" of losing the Senate, said Democratic strategist Gary Nordlinger, a Washington-based media consultant. "I wouldn't call it a probability, but there is certainly a chance."

"Republicans still have to [win] all the competitive races in order to get to a majority, but at least there are enough seats on the table to pull it off," said Nathan Gonzales, political editor of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report.

Democratic politicians have been saddled with an economy that they'd hoped--and predicted--would be doing much better by now. And if Republicans retake one or both chambers of Congress, it would create a serious roadblock for President Barack Obama's agenda. But Republicans would also have greater responsibility for tackling stubborn problems such as the economy, energy and immigration.

As the races warmed up this spring and summer, Republicans raised more money than Democrats. In a dozen of the closest Senate contests reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the GOP candidates as a group claimed 58% of contributions raised during the three-month period ending June 30. Democrats in those races, as a group, had a slim lead in total cash on hand.

 

[barfo]

Blazers See Path to 2011 NBA Championship

PORTLAND - Fans are for the first time acknowledging that the Blazers could win the 2011 NBA Championship next spring, if everything falls into place.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

How are the blazers doing when it comes to fundraising?

 

[Denny Crane]

Too little, too late. Right barfo?

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2004646,00.html

Dems Start to Panic As Midterm Reality Sets In

By Mark Halperin
Monday, Jul. 19, 2010

Under pressure, the Democrats are cracking. On both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, there is a realization that Nancy Pelosi's hold on the speakership is in true jeopardy; that losing control of the Senate is not out of the question; and that time, once the Democrats' best friend, is now their mortal enemy. Since January, when Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat, the President's party has tried to downplay in public what its pollsters have been saying in private: that Obama's alienation of independents and white voters, along with the enthusiasm gap between the right and the left, means that Republicans are on a trajectory to pick up massive numbers of House and Senate seats, perhaps even to regain control of Congress.

Evidence of the pervasiveness of this view: Sunday's New York Times op-ed page, which featured a series of short essays from leading Democratic and Republican strategists about how Obama could go about staging a political comeback, focused not on November's midterms but on 2012 — an indication that Washington conventional wisdom has already written off prospects of Democrats sustaining a majority in the legislature. (See 10 health care reform ads.)

What has kept the easily panicked denizens of Capitol Hill from open revolt until now was a shared confidence that there was still plenty of time to turn things around, and that the White House had a strategy to do just that. (Comment on this story.)

The two-part scheme was pretty straightforward. First, Democrats planned a number of steps to head off, or at least soften, the anti-Washington, anti-incumbent, anti-Obama sentiment that cost them the Massachusetts seat. Pass health care, and other measures to demonstrate that Democrats could get things done for the middle class; continue to foster those fabled green shoots on the economy, harvesting the positive impact of the massive economic stimulus bill passed early in the Administration; heighten the contrast between the two parties by delivering on Wall Street reform and a campaign-funding law to counteract January's controversial Supreme Court decision. Use all of those elements to contrast the Democrats' policies under Obama with the Republicans' policies under Bush, rather than allow the midterms to be a referendum on the incumbent party. (See portraits of the Tea Party movement.)

The second strand of the Democrats' plan was more prosaic and mechanical. Recruit strong candidates for open seats. Leverage the White House and congressional majorities to raise more money than the other side. Make mischief by playing up the divisions between the Tea Party and the more traditional elements of the Republican Party, in part to increase the chances that more extreme, less electable candidates edge out moderates in GOP primary battles. Do extensive opposition research and targeted messaging in the fall to delegitimize Republican candidates in the minds of centrist voters. Coordinate below the radar with labor unions, environmentalists and other allies on get-out-the-vote efforts, focusing on young, nonwhite and first-time voters who came out for Obama in 2008.

Robert Gibbs' now-famous acknowledgement on Meet the Press on July 11 that Republicans were in a position to win back control of the House sparked a notable outbreak of hostility between the White House and congressional Democrats for two reasons. First, it forced Pelosi & Co. to recognize that the first part of their plan is failing. Public and private polling suggests that anxiety over the lack of jobs and anger over the big-spending ways of the Administration will trump the merits of the stimulus spending, health care reform and the financial regulation bill in voters' minds. Neither the economy nor voters' perceptions are likely to be turned around by Election Day. Congressional Democrats were aware of this hard reality before Gibbs opened his mouth, but having him say it out loud was apparently too much for those on the Hill to bear. (See pictures of Sarah Palin campaigning at a Tea Party rally.)

Democrats also fear that Gibbs' admission will impact the flow of donations from corporate interests and lobbyists, who tend to want to bet on the party more likely to win the majority. Open musing about a speaker John Boehner, House Democrats believe, will drive mercenary donors to shift their support to the GOP. The huge fundraising hauls by GOP Senate candidates just reported for the second quarter of the year were not, of course, the result of Gibbs' statement, but the momentum suggested by those figures could be hypercharged by White House pessimism.

To be sure, the White House plans to continue to try to impact the national environment by touting its accomplishments, blaming Republicans for stopping other measures, and railing against the Bush legacy. They will also continue to work aggressively on the mechanics of victory, hoping to save their incumbents with their customized, race-by-race tactics. Vice President Joe Biden on ABC News' This Week crowed about Senate majority leader Harry Reid's back-from-the-dead strength in his Nevada race, credited largely to Reid's shaky Republican opponent, who landed her nomination in part because of Democratic shenanigans. Democrats hope to replicate that micro-success to save other seats. (See TIME's political covers.)

After days of public intraparty acrimony, a cold peace has been restored, with Democrats all around saying they share the same goals and strategy for November. But if the party's poll numbers stay bad and it loses big, expect a fundamental difference between the White House and congressional Democrats to emerge in sharp relief after Nov. 2.

Even if the midterms end the Democrats' one-party rule, the President may well believe that his accomplishments during his first two years in office were worth it. But it's a sure bet that the vanquished House Democrats who lose their jobs and their gavels won't share that assessment.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1478

July 21, 2010 - Obama Approval Drops To Lowest Point Ever, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Independent Voters Turn On President Since Honeymoon

A year after President Barack Obama's political honeymoon ended, his job approval rating has dropped to a negative 44 - 48 percent, his worst net score ever, and American voters say by a narrow 39 - 36 percent margin that they would vote for an unnamed Republican rather than President Obama in 2012, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 48 - 43 percent approval for Obama in a May 26 national poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University and a 57 - 33 percent approval last July, just before the political firestorm created by opposition to his health care plan galvanized political opponents and turned independent voters against him.

In this latest survey of more than 2,000 voters, independent voters disapprove of Obama 52 - 38 percent and say 37 - 27 percent they would vote for a Republican contender in 2012.

American voters also say 48 - 40 percent Obama does not deserve reelection in 2012.

Anti-incumbent sentiment slams both parties as voters disapprove 59 - 31 percent of the job Democrats are doing, and disapprove 59 - 29 percent of Republicans in Congress. But voters say 43 - 38 percent they would vote for a Republican in a generic Congressional race.

American voters say 42 - 32 percent that Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, similar to the 43 - 30 percent who felt that way in January of 2010.

"It was a year ago, during the summer of 2009 that America's love affair with President Barack Obama began to wane. In July of 2009, the President had a 57 - 33 percent approval rating. Today, his support among Democrats remains strong, but the disillusionment among independent voters, who dropped from 52 - 37 percent approval to 52 - 38 percent disapproval in the last 12 months, is what leads to his weakness overall when voters start thinking about 2012," said Peter A. Brown., assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"In politics a month is a lifetime and we have 28 months until November of 2012. But politicians with re-elect numbers at 40 percent bear watching," Brown added.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[Denny Crane]

More good news, Barfo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072204704_pf.html

Rep. Charles Rangel broke ethics rules, House panel finds
By Carol D. Leonnig and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 23, 2010; A01

A House ethics subcommittee announced Thursday that it found that Rep. Charles B. Rangel violated congressional ethics rules and that it will prepare for a trial, probably beginning in September. The panel is expected to make the details of his alleged violations public next Thursday.

Rangel (D-N.Y.) has been under the House ethics committee's microscope since early 2008 after it was reported that he may have used his House position to benefit his financial interests. Two of the most serious inquiries have focused on Rangel's failure to declare $239,000 to $831,000 in assets on his disclosure forms, and on his effort to raise money for a private center named after him at City College of New York using his congressional letterhead.

In March, Rangel reluctantly stepped down as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee -- a week after the ethics panel ruled in a separate case that he had broken congressional gift rules by accepting trips to conferences in the Caribbean that were financed by corporate interests. The panel said that, at a minimum, Rangel's staff knew about the corporate backing for the 2007 and 2008 trips -- and that the congressman was therefore responsible.

(Jonathan Capehart: Charlie Rangel, ethics violator)

Rangel, 80, said he welcomed the opportunity to respond to the allegations. "At long last, sunshine has pierced through this cloud that has been over my head for more than two years," he said when asked about the panel's decision.

Sources familiar with the case said that Rangel could have avoided this showdown by accepting the subcommittee's findings. He was briefed on the allegations against him -- as required by House rules -- in recent weeks, and he rejected them.

It has been eight years since the House last opened such proceedings against a member. That happened when Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) rejected the ethics committee's findings that he violated rules. He was later expelled by his peers. Before that, the last member expelled was Michael Myers (D-Pa.), removed by his colleagues in 1980 as a result of the Abscam scandal.

(Harlem's rich political culture faces uncertain future after allegations)

The committee announcement came shortly after 4 p.m. Thursday as the House finished its votes for the week. About 3 p.m., Rangel and the ethics committee's chairman, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), huddled together in a lengthy conversation on the Republican side of the House floor, far away from their Democratic colleagues, according to a Republican who observed the conversation.

A judge-like panel will meet next Thursday and read the charges. That will happen just as the House is about to leave Washington for a 6 1/2 -week recess. The full trial is not likely to begin until the week of Sept. 13 -- right before Rangel faces what could be a difficult Sept. 14 primary challenge from New York State Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV. Powell is the son of the late congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. (D-N.Y.), who faced his own ethics problems and was bested in 1970 by Rangel in a Democratic primary.

Rangel has several choices. He can resign, accept the charges and try to stay on, or defend himself. Pressure could build from Democratic members for him to resign rather than endure a public trial that would be humiliating for him and his party so soon before the November midterm elections.

Rangel has spent more than $2 million from his campaign treasury on his legal team, including more than $160,000 this spring, according to federal election reports.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took some heart from the new development involving her longtime colleague, saying it suggested positive things about Congress's ability to police its own.

"The action today would indicate that the independent, bipartisan ethics committee process is moving forward," said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

But Republicans used the news to try to make Democratic ethics woes a campaign issue, echoing what Pelosi did to Republicans in 2006, when a pair of GOP lawmakers pleaded guilty to federal felony charges and more than half a dozen others were caught up in their own corruption cases.

(Top ten Senate races that turned ugly)

"Today's announcement is a sad reminder of Speaker Pelosi's most glaring broken promise: to 'drain the swamp' in Washington instead of presiding over 'the most honest, most open and most ethical' Congress in history," said Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Fred Wertheimer, president of the congressional ethics group Democracy 21 and a former president of Common Cause, said that Rangel may choose to defend himself but that he "appears to be walking into a very difficult situation."

"He faces the members of the investigative subcommittee who have been looking at this for two years, who have concluded there is substantial reason to believe he has violated the rules," Wertheimer said. "He faces a very tough road ahead."

Some watchdog groups that in the past have called on Rangel to resign made the same plea Thursday. Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said it is striking that "the notoriously lax ethics committee" had found cause to believe that Rangel has broken the law, House rules or both.

"Representative Rangel has toughed it out as long as he could; the time clearly has come for him to resign," she said. "He can no longer effectively represent the citizens of New York."

Staff writer Lori Montgomery and research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh snap! A most prominent Democrat goes on public trial right about election time. The gift that just keeps giving.