Monday, May 5, 2014

The Coming #Democrat 2014 'Shellacking'

President Obama confessed that his party took a "shellacking" in the 2010 midterm elections.

It's still six months out from November 2014, but two polls out today paint a grim picture for House and Senate Democrats. At Pew Research, conducted with USA Today, a new survey shows Republicans leading Democrats by four points in the generic ballot, 47 to 43 percent. The key finding for me, however, is how dramatic the parties have traded places since last October, at the time of the ObamaCare rollout. Back then Democrats were leading the generic ballot by far, holding a six-point lead (49 to 43 percent) over the Republicans. See, "Midterm Election Indicators Daunting for Democrats: No Improvement in Perceptions of Job Market" (at Memeorandum).

And here's the USA Today report, "Poll: For the midterms, a tilt to the GOP." And check the beautiful graphic at the link. In November 2010, the parties were tied at 44 percent in the generic ballot, and the GOP still went on to gain 63 seats in the House. And Republicans picked up 6 seats in the Senate that year, taking the nationwide popular vote 49.4 to 44 percent.

Susan Page of USA Today is interviewed by Jake Tapper at the Twitter link below, and she indicates that Republicans haven't had this kind of lead in the generic ballot for decades.

And CNN's also out with a poll showing similar Democrat Party disadvantages, "CNN Poll: GOP advantage in midterms." Particularly noteworthy are the president's numbers, clearly a drag on Democrat prospects in the fall:
According to the poll, 43% of Americans say they approve of the job Obama is doing as president, with 55% giving him a thumbs down. The President's approval rating is unchanged from CNN's most recent survey, which was conducted in early March.

The President's approval ratings are hovering in the low to mid 40's in most non partisan national polling this year, slightly above where he stood in November and December, when he hit or matched his all-time low in many surveys....

While a majority of those questioned say the President is not a major factor in their vote this November, a quarter say they will be sending a message that they oppose Obama, with one in five saying their vote will be a message of support for the President.

"On the face of it, a majority saying that their vote is not based on their opinion of an unpopular president may sound like good news for Democrats," Holland said. "But President Obama has usually been the Democratic party's most reliable way to fire up the base, and this question suggests that Democrats won't turn out this year just because Obama asks them to. It's also worth noting that the current numbers are almost identical to 2010, when the President's party got shellacked in the midterms."

And Democrats, more than Republicans, appear to have more work ahead of them when it comes to firing up the base. Conventional wisdom dictates that the GOP has an advantage over the Democrats in midterm contests. White voters and older voters, key to the Republican base, tend to cast ballots in bigger percentages in midterms than younger voters and minorities, who are an important part of the Democrats' base.
Dana Bash, also interviewed with Jake Tapper at the link above, warns that there's simply too much that could happen on the Senate side to make any reliable predictions at this point. "Something big" could happen, like a Todd Akin, that could torpedo Republican hopes of recapturing the upper chamber. Commenters here, in previous posts, have also warned that the Republicans will probably snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and I'm not quick to blow off such sentiments. But barring a major campaign debacle that gives the Democrats unearned advantages in the fall media sound-bite cycle, I think "shellacking" won't be a strong enough term for the beating voters administer the Dems come fall.

More at Memeorandum.

Added: From Heather Ginsberg, at Town Hall, "65% of Americans Want Next President to Change Obama's Policies."

Utterly astounding numbers.

0 comments: