Democrat Outlook Worse Than 2010

Democrats are pinning their hopes on making a comeback after their disastrous 2010 election results, and they have selected 60 Republican-held “battleground” districts to try to make that change. Well, they can HOPE for CHANGE in the results all they want. According to a Democrat pollster, things look even worse now than they did in 2010. From National Journal comes the news.

One of the Democratic party’s leading pollsters released a survey of 60 Republican-held battleground districts today painting an ominous picture for Congressional Democrats in 2012. The poll shows Democratic House candidates faring worse than they did in the 2010 midterms, being dragged down by an unpopular president who would lose to both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Pollster Stan Greenberg released the poll with some sugary spin for Democrats, downplaying the results by arguing that the president’s jobs plan will improve the party’s fortunes.

How’s that working out for you? Yeah, that “jobs” plan is going over like a lead balloon as Senate Democrats are loudly declaring “No, you don’t”. And those lead balloons tend not to bounce all that well.

But the numbers – at least right now — are troubling for Democrats, and echoed some of the takeaways from the GOP special election upset in New York City last week. Instead of an overall anti-incumbent sentiment impacting members of both parties, voters are taking more of their anger out on Democrats. When voters were asked whether they’re supporting the Republican incumbent or a Democratic candidate, 50 percent preferred the Republican and just 41 percent backed the Democrat.

Voters in these districts said they were more supportive of Republicans than they were during the 2010 midterms, when 48 percent said they backed the Republican candidate and 42 percent said they backed the Democrat. (Republicans won 55 percent of the overall vote in these 60 battleground districts, while Democrats took 43 percent.) In 2010, Republicans netted 63 House seats – their best showing since 1948.

So, according to a Democrat pollster, the voters are two percent more likely to vote for a Republican and one percent less likely to vote for a Democrat now than in 2010, the year of the TEA Party-lead Republican tsunami. No, the Democrats will have to forget about trying to win back seats and start to figure out how to save what Democrat seats they have, because 2012 is lining up to be another year of across-the-board Republican gains, led by the TEA Party/Conservative grass-roots wave.

Here’s a blast from the past. January 25, 2010, ABC News.

Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., fears that these midterm elections are going to go the way of the 1994 midterms, when Democrats lost control of the House after a failed health care reform effort.

But, Berry told the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the White House does not share his concerns.

“They just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

(What’s with the pink highlighting, ABC?) Yes, that was the difference, alright. The 2010 elections were an even greater landslide than the 1994 elections. And it continues to be the difference. After the 1994 elections, President Clinton commandeered multiple Republican agenda items as his own. After the 2010 elections, President Obama threw a hissy fit and doubled down on his ad hominem and straw-man attacks while maintaining the Leftist agenda. So, the difference between 1996 and 2012 is you Democrats have Obama.

The news coming out of Virginia is definitely bad for Democrats, as Ed Morrissey points out.

In 2008, Barack Obama sailed to victory over John McCain in Virginia by six points in the normally Republican state, promising “hope and change.” According to a new poll from Roanoke College in Virginia, Obama certainly brought change. The incumbent President trails both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, and can only muster 33% support against a generic Republican — twenty points below his popular-vote percentage in 2008[.]

The really bad news? Roanoke polled adults, not registered or likely voters. Democrats tend to do much better in polls that don’t screen for registration, which means that a more predictive sample would undoubtedly have produced even less pleasant results for Obama.

Chances are very strong that Virginia is lost to Obama, as Virginians will vote the ABO (anyone but Obama) line in 2012. As Ed Morrissey said, expect Democrats to only put in enough money in Virginia to attempt to protect down-ticket incumbent Democrats.

New York City this year put a Republican in a seat held by Democrats since the 1920s as the Republican candidate tied the Democrat candidate directly to Obama. Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District, a “battleground” district Democrats hoped to capture, saw the Republican demolish the Democrat by 20 points as, once again, the Republican tied the Democrat directly to Obama.

Smitty notes that The New Republic’s William Galston is upset that Democrats are losing the independent vote.

As Democrats are looking at 2012 being a much worse outcome than 1996, there is another correlation, and that is between 2012 and 1980. There are many similarities: a bad economy that is not improving, a lot of ugliness going on in the Middle East that the President isn’t fit to handle, a very unpopular President, a Conservative grass-roots distaste for the Establishment Republicans, the Establishment Republicans fighting hard against a Conservative Republican candidate. But there are differences as well. In 1980, Republicans still had the shadow of Watergate hanging over them. In 2012, Democrats have more than just a shadow of Fast and Furious, Solyndra, LightSquared. It has even gotten to the point that many incumbent Democrats do not want to be photographed with Obama, because they cannot afford to be tied to Obama if they want to win reelection.

No, Democrats, the difference between Clinton and Obama is Obama never learned and is still rhetorically mauling the public. And the public doesn’t like being mauled.
________
Cross-Post

16 Comments

  1. I have forgotten who it was who said that, in politics, you should be glad when the polls show that you are ahead, but you should still always campaign like you are behind.

    I think that the Republicans are going to win the 2012 elections, retaining the House, and capturing both the Senate and the White House, but opinion polls are just that: opinion polls. We can “win” every opinion poll from now until November of 2012, but unless we win on election day, none of those opinion polls will mean very much.

    What I think we’ll start to see, once we get into 2012, is a bunch of Democrats running for re-election by telling their constituents that they are really independent-thinkers, and that they don’t march in goosestep lockstep with the party leadership or the White House. And we’ll start to see congressional votes in which the Democrats are going along with the Republicans, knowing that a particular vote is lost anyway, to burnish their “independent” credentials. That’s just what happens when the incumbent President is a drag on the whole ticket.

  2. What I think we’ll start to see, once we get into 2012, is a bunch of Democrats running for re-election by telling their constituents that they are really independent-thinkers, and that they don’t march in goosestep lockstep with the party leadership or the White House.

    You mean the President’s class warfare demagoguery won’t sway voters to maintain the status quo? Surely you’re not suggesting that Democrats can’t convince their constituents that those mean rich corporate Republicans have more disposable income than Democrats? How are we supposed to make sure Conservatives “pay their fair share”? How can we not see the liberal ideology flourish next year with Obama’s motivational speech telling his constituents to stop whining? The only thing missing from that speech was a Howie Dean yeeeeee hawwww!

    I guess “requesting” Obama and the liberal leadership—those “independent thinkers”—to STOP SPENDING was too much to ask.

  3. Uh-huh:

    It is not possible to run for president as a Republican these days without at some level having to become a parody of yourself. Running within a radicalized, self-contained universe with its own private, physical laws and its own private history, with its own vocabulary and syntax that has to be learned from scratch almost daily, requires an ongoing manic re-invention that can do nothing but make the candidate look ridiculous to people outside that universe.

    This is how we get Mitt Romney, with his $290 million, telling an audience that he doesn’t “try to define who is rich and who is not rich.” (Here’s a hint, Mitt. You’re rich. You’re filthy, stinking rich. You reek of money. You belong on a card in a Monopoly set, okay? Buy a damn monocle already.)
    [...]
    On his best day, watching Perry try to think on his feet is rather like watching a hippo try to ice-skate. And this most assuredly was not his best day. He stumbled around, and he got slow-roasted by the other fantasts with whom he was sharing the stage to the point where, in what looked like terror and desperation, he blurted out something approximating the truth. People who didn’t see the point in what he had done for those kids, well, Rick Perry thought they had no heart.

    And that was pretty much the ballgame. Not only was he giving “breaks” to “illegals,” but Perry was calling these great Christian souls, who wept when Rick Santorum talked about how a college kid whose girlfriend was considering an abortion changed her mind when she saw Rick on the floor of the Senate, talking for hours about banning what he called “partial-birth” abortion, and who smiled grandfatherly smiles at the mention of Jon Huntsman’s little bean-curd of a daughter, heartless, just because they didn’t want to give those “breaks” to all those “illegals.” The weekend pivoted — toward Herman Cain! — almost immediately. That answer turned the hall against him, sent Bill Kristol to the fainting couch, and set a thousand heads turning in the direction of the governor of New Jersey, or whomever the next fool will be. This is a party capable of winning elections, but not leading a nation. To borrow a line from that noted Republican, Bobby Knight, this party couldn’t lead a whore to bed.

  4. To cut spending on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, without a corresponding increase of taxes on the >$250k families, puts almost all of the burden on the already struggling American middle and poor, Rovin. Please explain to me why this Repub policy approach is wise, because I simply don’t get it?

  5. Perry, you sound like you are genuinely confused as to how the polls are worse for Democrats now than in November, 2010. You profess a real desire to understand and have your confusion cleared up, so I’m going to give a good faith effort to do that to the best of my ability.

    You will never “get” anything when the very first thing you do is violate Providence’s Tenth Commandment. I issued a challenge to Liberals on TBD. I gave them one single rule to follow:

    You shall not covet your countryman’s house. You shall not covet your countryman’s ability to have a domestic staff, his car or bank account, or anything that belongs to your countryman.

    And I challenged them to produce a Liberal economic and social agenda, following that one single rule, by letter and by spirit. I didn’t get anything that fit the parameters. It is because Socialism (hence Liberalism) starts as its foundation to institutionalize the VIOLATION of the Tenth Commandment. Everywhere Socialism has been tried it has failed, due very specifically to its aim of “nobody should have any more than anyone else” which is a direct violation of the Tenth Commandment (and my rule, which is the Tenth Commandment).

    When you have a 10-man rowing crew (skulling), you depend on all 10 men rowing to the best of their abilities. When 5 are rowing forward, 4 are not rowing at all, and 1 is rowing backward, you cannot ever win anything. Success is not an option. When 50 percent of the nation’s workforce pays for everything, 40 percent pay nothing, 10 percent actually get money from the 50 percent because they made money but not enough, you are doomed to Socialist failure.

    If you truly want to clear up your confusion, start by asking yourself “does this view of mine violate the Tenth Commandment?” If it does, then change your view and retry.

  6. Mr Hitchcock, one of these days you’ll probably need that breath you just wasted. The Tenth Commandment, as you nationalized it, is a non-starter from the point of our friends on the left, because, if perhaps they don’t personally covet their neighbor’s property — I rater doubt that Warren Buffet has to do so — they still see a societal needs when they see people who don’t have as much, and believe that the power of government is the only way to assure that those needs be met; the concept that just because some people have less does not mean that the power of government should not be used to change that is simply outside their paradigm.

  7. Ah, but Mr Pico, one never knows which mustard seed will germinate. And as Perry showed a genuine confusion and a genuine desire to understand, insofar as I could read into his comment, I chose to give a genuine good faith answer to try to help him understand.

    It may well be true that it was, in the end, wasted breath based on the recipients. But I cannot call it wasted effort, as the more people realize the Liberal and Socialist agenda requires the codification of the VIOLATION of the Tenth Commandment, the more likely it is that some people will reject the Liberal and Socialist agenda.

  8. If you truly want to clear up your confusion, start by asking yourself “does this view of mine violate the Tenth Commandment?”

    Why should he bother when violating the Ninth Commandment is your entire oeuvre?

  9. What made this country the richest, most economically successful country in the history of the world was the view of “if I put my mind and effort into it, I can get some for myself”. Businesses developed because people saw a need and filled it, knowing they would be financially rewarded. They weren’t concerned about “hey, someone has more than I do so I have to steal it from them.”

    What is sinking this country now is the view of “soaking the rich” so that people who didn’t get rich don’t have to do anything to get money. As has been proven multiple times over, taking all the wealth of all the billionaires and the top half of millionaires will not only not cover the deficit spending of the Liberals who ballooned government, it would destroy millions of jobs and permanently destroy the US economy, the richest economy in the world.

  10. And of course the Lying Socialist from New Zealand, who has on multiple occasions been shown that his hateful, dishonest accusations of others lying to be wholly made up on his part, has to chime in to troll the comment section with more of his lies instead of focusing in on the issue at hand.

    But I never expected to reach the wholly rotten mind of the Lying Socialist from New Zealand. He is so gone to the Ten Commandments, the Ninth and Tenth especially, that he is truly a lost cause.

  11. And, quite frankly, as practically every single Conservative and Libertarian on this site has said, if the Lying Socialist from New Zealand were banned from CSPT (as he has been banned from many Conservative/Libertarian sites for his purely trollish behavior, as evidenced by his most recent comment here), CSPT would regain much of the readership and commentary it has lost.

  12. My article.
    My thread.
    My rules.

    Comment deleted.

    Stay on topic or:
    My article.
    My thread.
    My rules.
    Comment deleted.

    This has been a warning provided by the author of:
    My article.
    My thread.
    My rules.

    And not the author of:
    Comment deleted.

  13. And, Mr Pico, it is noted that Perry had not the slightest intent on actually listening to Conservatives as he posted above [comment deleted]. His whole intent, disguised as an honest query regarding his confusion, was to malign the Right. As always. But that doesn’t prevent the mustard seed from germinating. It just won’t germinate in Perry’s or the Socialist from New Zealand’s mind. There are other minds which are actually open to the Truth that may find the mustard seed and find it germinating within themselves.

    Perry, like the Socialist New Zealander, is regrettably a lost cause. Non-commenting readers, on the other hand, may not be a lost cause to the Truth as Perry and the Socialist New Zealander are.

Comments are closed.