Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Maybe they're peaking early

by Paul Wells on Monday, August 30, 2010 11:11pm - 0 Comments

Gallup tonight is reporting the largest Republican lead ever over Democrats in a generic congressional ballot. Eh. Ver. Ten points. (Democrats have often held greater advantages over the Republicans; for decades after World War II, the House pretty much came with a built-in Democrat advantage.) And Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to say they’re “very” enthusiastic about voting in the fall.

President Obama’s Iraq speech tomorrow should be interesting.

Tags: Barack Obama, Congressional elections, Gallup

More by Paul Wells

s_c_f

Obama's made too many speeches. I can't imagine that one more speech will have much of an impact. Americans have already started to tune him out. Especially after the colossal failure of the stimulus and his oft-repeated assertions of a recovery that has yet to happen, while debt has been piled on top of more debt.
Jenn_

How many more votes does each 'enthusiastic' voter get?

EDIT: Scratch that. I forgot about chads. I expect enthusiasm will rip through those things and leave nothing hanging.

Inkless

Sigh.

How many more votes does a group of 100 voters cast, if they are enthusiastic, than a group of 100 voters who are less enthusiastic, in a country where voter turnout is often low?

But thanks for the thoughtful response.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Really?

You don't think Jenn was maybe just making a cute little joke?

A_logician

The existential question underlying this exchange: is a person who is eligible to vote (and who has voted in the past) a voter if that person does not cast a ballot at this opportunity? Could we say "voter turnout is often low" if a voter is only a voter if that person has cast a ballot at this opportunity? Can we take the opportunity of this ambiguity to declare voter turnout to be 100% (since the set of those who are voters is the same as the set of those who voted? How much longer can I carry on this theme until Feschuk thinks I'm Ken Dryden? Is anyone still with me?

Lord Kitchener's Own

You lost me at "existential"…

brooster

With the Tea baggers creating so much mischief on the right end of the political spectrum, isn't there a possibility that the GOP will circle the wagons and shoot inward?

http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

Republican primaries are a lot more fun to watch this year, but that's why there are primaries.

Senate incumbents went down in Utah and Alaska (pending absentee ballots), and establishment favourites went down in Nevada and Kentucky. Watch Delaware next.

brooster

In support of my comment and (I think) yours:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/30/christin…

http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

Here's a more meta one: http://www.slate.com/id/2265547/pagenum/all/

Basically, yes, absolutely it's pulling the party to the right. Whether that changes how November 2010 plays out depends on whether you think the midterm electorate is moving to the right like that, too.

For that — given you call the Tea Party folk "Tea baggers", I know where your preferences lie. :p. I suspect you may end up a little disappointed, though the Angle/Reid battle will be close, and that one may just have saved Reid's bacon. Wouldn't bet on it, tho'.

brooster

What, in your opinion, are the odds that the Tea baggers (or Tea Party folk, if you prefer) win enough primaries to scare off the GOP's moderate base, let alone independents, in November? They certainly seem to be giving many people in that party a bad case of the yips.
http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

Put it another way — for things to change from now, it'll be the Democrats or "events, dear boy, events".

Maybe Obama will rediscover his magic touch.

Maybe the best negative campaign will be run on the D side since the Johnson campaign.

Maybe we'll catch Osama, making Obama a hero to the people who see him as weak now — and as the president goes, so goes his party.

Maybe we'll go to war with Iran or the Norks and everyone will rally 'round the flag.

Ten weeks is an eternity, and anything can happen.
brooster

Seer above. Thanks again.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

With people on your side needing to use the perverted sexual term "tea bagger" to describe political opponents, I doubt that any implosion will come from the right side of the political spectrum.

Holly Stick

Oh, it's a sexual term? Why don't you explain what it means?

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Why in the world do I have to explain what comes out of a left-winger's dirty mouth, or the motivation behind it?

brooster

Hey Dennis F…thanks for the gratuitous swipe.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Gratuitous swipe? Pointing out your disgusting term to describe political opponents is a gratuitous swipe, is it? Wow.
brooster

Whatever…I honestly didn't know about its offensive connotations and modified my language in my subsequent exchange with B(TT). I'm not my wasting time and bandwidth in another slagging match with you.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Why did you specifically use that term? And, if you actually had no clue, which I doubt, why not apologize instead of attack me? Class all the way, eh?
brooster

Can you give it a rest? I'm more interested in discussing the issues than finger-pointing at you.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

If you were truly interested in "discussing the issues" you never would have used that term in the first place. Sorry.
brooster

Look, I give up…you're onto me…I confess: I engaged in that thread with B(TT) knowing that you were lurking and that my choice of language would be offensive to you in particular (even tho' he and I got past it without a problem) and that it would bait you into another pointless exchange about the motives and behaviours of "left wingers".

I promise not to engage in any more exchanges with you. Feel better? Move on.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

You didn't direct that comment to me. You used a term that is common on the left, is offensive, and you probably knew it. I'm not looking for a fight. I merely pointed out, and rightly so, how offensive the language was that you were using. And, instead of apologizing for it, you lash out at someone who called you on it. What an agenda.
http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

I find trying a gentle correction first works best, with the assumption being that some people genuinely don't know this stuff. (You'd be surprised.)

If that fails, I make the same complaint you do above.

If that too fails, I start calling my interlocutors "Obama fellators" till they stop calling my people "tea-baggers", and tell them that's how it's going to be.

It generally works with my liberal friends, as they do still have a sense of shame. (Tho' I'm just not speaking to a few till after November 2nd, after which political reality may give my social wishes more street cred.)

Controlled rhetorical escalation works — just as reciprocity is a fine principle in international diplomacy.

http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

Hey Wells — remember noticing last year (somewhat to your surprise) that the GOP was taking care to tie health care reform to Obama? And pointing out to Canadian readers that, yes, it seemed rather counter-intuitive, but they nevertheless were doing it?

Well, that and a number of other issues, produced this.

***

As for the Iraq speech… maybe it'll help restore some liberal cred to the president, with the last of the combat brigades gone. Conservatives will point out that combat troops are coming out on the timetable negotiated by Bush in 2008, and add that this president wanted to pull out before the surge, so no help on that front.
Emily

Tea baggers are what they called themselves until they discoved the alternative meaning.

But Teaparty is no better…that's a gay sex party with meth.

Your choice.

hosertohoosier

You can follow the use of either term with google trends. On April 9th, Rachel Maddow used the term tea-baggers to describe the tea party protesters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/09/rachel-maddow-ana-marie-c_n_185445.html). Not long after, one sees a spike in the use of the term – although interestingly it was much more widely used by the newsmedia than the general public (measured by searches on google).
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22tea+party%22%2C…

By contrast, searches and mentions of the tea party movement had been on the rise since Rick Santelli's February 2009 rant. The tea party movement had long existed, with limited employment of the term tea-bagger.

And I have never heard of that usage for tea party. Perhaps the right needs to invent a noxious sexual act, and call it the Hope 'n Change.

jarrid

Things can certainly change quickly in politics but the consensus is that the Democrats goose is pretty well cooked this November. I offer up as a example, the democrat friendly liberal columnist Paul Krugman from the democrat-friendly liberal New York Times writing yesterday on the inevibility of the the Republicans taking over Congress

"If I were President Obama, I’d be doing all I could to head off this prospect, offering some major new initiatives on the economic front in particular, if only to shake up the political dynamic. But my guess is that the president will continue to play it safe, all the way into catastrophe."
:
jarrid

The most left-wing U.S.president in American history by a country mile becoming a political millstone on the Democratic Party's electoral prospects in the mid-terms.

One didn't need a M.A. in Political Science to see that one coming.
PolJunkie

Peaking early? I don't think so. The Dems are going to get turfed during the mid-terms and, while I don't want to underestimate Obama's campaigning skills, I think that Obama will be lucky to get re-elected to another term.

The only thing that can save Obama and the Dems would be a rebound in the economy. And a major one at that.

Emily

Obama seems himself as a transitional president….which he is, and he's quite prepared for only one term.

He's changing basic things in American society, and isn't concerned about the politics.

Which is why nobody knows what to make of him.

PolJunkie

"Obama seems himself as a transitional president….which he is, and he's quite prepared for only one term."

transitional president?!? transitioning to what?

So you believe that the Dems would have wrestled control of Congress and the WH for just one term? Emily, that makes no sense.

Emily

Transitioning the US to a globalized world, in which the US is only one of 200 countries.

I didn't say Dems understood that, but Obama does.

jarrid

Oh, and one more thing.

It gladdens my heart that adult supervision is on the way for this incompetent neophyte of a president. Although there is much to criticize in Obama's presidency, that part which has been the most troubling, and dangerous, is the foreign policy aspect. Not since the Carter administration has the U.S. projected so much weakness and irresoluteness in the foreign policy realm.

America's enemies are emboldened while her allies are confused. The last time this state of affairs prevailed the thugs governing the now defunct USSR took the opportunity to invade Afghanistan.

It will be sheer good luck if something similar doesn't happen under Obama's dismal reign. I think we all know the likely thuggish suspects this go-round.

The adult supervision can't come quickly enough. To the Republicans who are thankfully there to save us from this bad excuse for a president, all I have to say is: Godspeed, godspeed.

danby

To the Republicans who are thankfully there to save us from this bad excuse for a president

I'm not sure how McCain /Palin would have been a better choice.

As imperfect as Mr Obama may be, the circumstances make for undeniably tough sledding – and I don't know who else would be doing a better job.

JamesHalifax

Well, who can really express surprise?

Obama assumed the Presidency with the help of friendly media and Bush-fatigue.

People are taking a second look and realizing that the ability to read a teleprompter displaying a speech written by someone else does NOT mean you will be a good president. The cat is out of the bag.

Obama is as qualified to be President, as he was worthy of the Nobel. Clearly, the people are starting to watch what Obama does, who he appoints, and what his goals are…..

and they don't like it.

As for the Repulicans……they'll do no better if they cannot find someone worthy of being the president in his stead. Palin? Give me a break.

Time for another BUSH in the whitehouse. Jeb…where are you?

(watch the lefty heads explode)

danby

Jeb was certainly the Bush who worked harder, was more focused and more deserving of a shot at the presidency; he would have been a better choice than his brother. I'm not certain if the Bush name is electable at this point, but stranger things have happened
http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

Jeb's a good man, but I hope my guys do better than putting another Bush in the White House…

wascally wabbit

Nice try James – but out to lunch I'm afraid!
What have the Republicans to offer?
A choice of Palin (snort) Limbaugh, Boehner, McConnell
Loony, Devious, Unbelievable and Negativity.

JamesHalifax

I actually agree with you wascally…..the Republicans have NO ONE ready to assume the mantel.

I just hope they find someone before an idiot like Glenn Beck decides to throw his (tinfoil) hat into the ring.

LynnTO

Well, colour me shocked. /sarcasm

A platform based on "hope" in the throes of the worst recession in recent history should have given us an indication that there was a snowball's chance in hell that the sentiment would last.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

How about implementing economic policies to directly ameliorate the economic situation? Instead, Americans got huge big corporation bailouts, stimulus that doesn't stimulate, and a radical and expensive change in American health care that took over a year to shove through Congress. Obama had his opportunity. He had the chance to be who he said he would be, which is to engage both sides of the political aisle in order to give Americans the hope and change they wanted. Instead, he blew it. America is more even more divided and less filled with hope than when he started. I guess it's a type of brilliance that only his leftist admirers can appreciate.
JamesHalifax

Unfortunately, "HOPE" doesn't pay the rent, protect your family, or put food on the table.

Jobs do that.

Obama's ideas and policies are job killers.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I doubt the speech in Iraq will have any positive or negative impact on the the upcoming midterms. Obama is giving this speech because it's his duty as president. Unless, of course, he completely changes course and starts taking unapologetic pride in America's greatness.

A_logician

To rephrase Will Rogers: "If unapologetic pride in America's greatness got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?"

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

And how do you think Obama's approval numbers would fare if he said something like that? Again, most people in this world are unapologetically proud of their country. The only people who are resented for it are Americans.

A_logician

To rephrase Harry Callahan: "A nation's gotta know its limitations."

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

However, I will add one thing. I read a headline where Obama apparently called Bush before tonight's speech. If, for maybe the first time in a long time, and corresponding to what he promised in his campaign, Obama rises above partisanship and actually looks presidential in his address tonight, it might help him out. Nevertheless, Iraq really isn't an issue for the midterms, so, again, I'm still skeptical of any impact.

Phil_King

Seems to me everyone's expectations are out of whack. Honestly, this is the largest recession/depression in 70 years, the US was until recently fighting two wars, and Obama was supposed to do what about all that in 19 months?

The short-sightedness of people is astounding.

If you think anyone else could've done any better, then you're fooling yourselves.

Emily

Obama was supposed to wave a magic wand and solve all the problems within minutes of his inauguration. It's what people want all politicians to do, and when they can't, people turn on them.

DPT

"this is the moment when the oceans rise began to….." sounds like a magic wand to me.

Claudia Lemire

I like Obama but I kind of agree with you, he did start to believe he was above all but I don't blame him, I think any human being with that kind of admiration and adoration would let it go straight to their ego.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I personally think that a person grounded in faith and God wouldn't let things get to their ego like that, but maybe that's just me. I don't know.
Claudia Lemire

Don't get me wrong I really believe he is a good man, but it was too much, as Hillary said "it takes a village" that's so true!

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I find it interesting to compare the rhetoric of the campaign to the current stance of Obama apologists. They came in saying they could do better. After having their chance, they now say that it was too tough to begin with. Then why take the job in the first place?

After spending trillions of dollars, and focusing so much on the largest overhaul of America's health care system in history, Obama is not to take any responsibility for the current mess? Who are some of you trying to kid? I mean, is the guy responsible for anything he's done? Apparently not.

Phil_King

Oh yes, after 8 years of mismanagment and out of control spending by Bush, and while in the middle of a global recession, Obama was supposed to fix everything in 19 months? What a silly expectation.

The issues they're dealing with in the US are many and complex. It will takes years to resolve many of them, regardless of who is in power.

Given the current GOP resistance to everything and anything that comes their way these days, I hope for the sake of the US that they give Obama and his party the power to do what needs to be done.

The alternative is gridlock, and that won't help anyone.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Let's see. The Bush economy was strong for most of his two terms. He didn't prevent the financial meltdown, and neither did a Democratic Congress, but he wasn't its specific cause either.

When Bush was hit with 9/11, did he spend most of his time blaming Clinton, or did he keep America safe for the next seven years straight? There's something called leadership. So far, Obama hasn't displayed it, nor do his supporters seem interested in the slightest to see him do so.

The left can try to blame Bush for Obama's record all they want. Obama was never interested in bipartisanship. He had the numbers in both houses to get things done. He did. It's still a mess. Americans get a chance to voice their opinion in these midterm elections. That's democracy. Thank God.

Phil_King

First of all, are you suggesting that Clinton had something to do with 9/11? Are you really that far gone?

Secondly, it's Bushes policies and the war in Iraq that bankrupted the US, plain and simple. Ramping up spending while cutting taxes and ignoring the insane practices of the banks may take time to catch up with you, but it certainly does. So yeah everything seemed fine until it became obvious it wasn't. Then his party got trounced as a result. Since its only been 19 months since Obama took office, I'd hardly say the jury has much to go on yet concerning his effectiveness.

As far as leadership, when the blind lead the blind, both fall into the ditch.

And such was the ditch Bush led them to that it will take a long time to get out of. Hopefully the Americans are smart enough to avoid leaders like him in the future.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I am suggesting that threats like 9/11 certainly developed while Clinton was still in office. Or are you that out of touch with presidential responsibilities and national security?

The economy was fine for most of Bush's tenure. Did he put enormous stress on the country's finances? Yes. Is Obama doing even more? Yes. Again, why in the world isn't he responsible for that? Bush didn't jack up spending and the deficit nearly as much as Obama is doing now. Right?

So, the usual suspects can blame someone else for their policies all they want. I suspect that the American voter won't be so easily convinced. Nor would the left if the situation was reversed. You can bet on it.
Phil_King

So you're playing with words then. You reference Clinton merely as an attempt at a slight, since you obviously can't cite any reason why Clinton would've known that 9/11 was coming, or that there was anything he could've done about it, or anything he did to cause it.

Secondly, you surreptitiously attempt to compare Bush's terrible economic policies and the economic consequences they incurred with Obama's attempts to deal with those consequences.

Bush authored the problem and Obama is stuck with putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. I think most rational people understand where the blame for the costs lie on that one.

The average American voter is understandably "miffed" right now, and has an inherent distrust of everyone in politics. I don't blame them one bit. The Republicans are of course trying to feed on this, which I find terribly ironic.

In any case, diluting the ability of the President to lead will simply undermine the recovery, as I don't believe that the Republicans are focused on anything but petty partisan politics at this stage.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Look, the 9/11 threat didn't develop overnight. Bill Clinton had to have been at least partially responsible, since it did develop when he was in charge and he treated terrorism as though it was law enforcement. But my main point is that Bush didn't engage in finger pointing. Or do you not comprehend that?

Again, all you're doing is blaming Bush for Obama's record. Bush didn't force Obama to spend trillions on stimuli that didn't stimulate, bailouts that spent $2 million per "job saved", or a messy health care program that will only make things worse, and that only the left loves.

Why in the world isn't Obama responsible for all of that?

And, yes, Obama lovers want to blame everything on the GOP, even though they have been on-side with the public all along. That's a neat trick.
Phil_King

You're trying to compare two completely different things. Saying Bush "chose" not to finger point concerning 9/11 is nonsense, and any attempt on his part to do so would've been met with justified skepticism and derision.

In the case of Obama, what stimulus would've been required in addition to that which Bush himself employed, if not for the terrible economic decisions and lack of oversight that Bush was responsible for in the first place?

Bush Jr. has killed every company he's ever managed, and the US is the biggest thing he's managed to destroy to date. He's a prime example of what happens when you elect Daddy's little boy to office with little concern for his capabilities.

Sorry the truth hurts, but Obama's actions on the economy wouldn't have been required if Bush hadn't been so utterly incompetent.

hosertohoosier

Here is how Obama could have done better:

1. He could have focused the stimulus on areas with a high multiplier effect (like infrastructure or aid to the states) instead of dumping almost half of the money into spending that the CBO suggests will have little stimulative effect (like his making work pay tax credit).

2. Instead of exploiting a crisis (and wasting his political capital) in ramming through a healthcare bill that will have a marginal impacts on healthcare costs, he could have prioritized the financial reforms that the economy desperately needs.

3. Instead of sending his advocates to criticize a badly beaten opposition party, he could have used his messaging to build support for his ideas.

4. Instead of repeating the mistakes of the Iraq war in Afghanistan he could have withdrawn or shaken up US strategy much earlier.

5. Instead of pushing for expanded offshore drilling, he could have checked whether existing regulations were adequate.

Obama has fumbled most of the major decisions of his presidency in one way or another. He promised better, and the American people should demand better.

Phil_King

Of course everyone can do better in a perfect world, and I'm not going to sit here and claim Obama hasn't made errors in judgement, but frankly it's just too easy to judge from the sidelines. The President of the US has a lot of pressures from many directions and many conflicting priorities.

Before Bush Jr. came along I was always of the opinion that Republican President's were over all pretty good at managing the country, even if they had a penchant for spending money.

I guess Georgie is just one of those guys you either love or hate.

Personally I think he was a complete incompetent, but then I'm biased against war mongers in general, so watchagonnado?
PolJunkie

hoser = revisionist on steroids

PolJunkie

"Honestly, this is the largest recession/depression in 70 years, the US was until recently fighting two wars, and Obama was supposed to do what about all that in 19 months?"

Oh its worse than this. Americans actually blame Obama for their current conditions. Nevermind the fact that Obama took power well after their economy crashed, he's now the one that supposedly created the mess to begin with.

Phil_King

I know, it's ridiculous. What else can you say?

Kerry

it's not about the situation Obama inherited. that can be blamed on Bush AND on the Democrats in the House and Senate. it's easy to argue both sides of that one.

What ISN'T hard to argue about is how terribly wrong Obama has been about how to address everything.

all Presidents inherit a messed up world, and a complex economy.

boo-hoo.

Thwim

Yes, but Obama also inherited a complex world with a messed up economy.

Emily

Obama aide: Iraq speech not a victory lap
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/31/obama.oval…
Geiseric

Bush isn't running again, is he? Otherwise care loads. They're all circling the same candle.
brooster

OK. Thanks for the inside-baseball on the dynamics of American electoral politics. To me, it's a pretty arcane process…more like inside-cricket.

http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

It's very much like following a favourite sport, yes.

That's what makes it fun. That and the high stakes involved.

YYZ

In my opinion, Obama has only made one crucial mistake as President: he got the order on health care reform and financial reform backwards.

Starting with healthcare allowed the (R) party to paint him as a big gov't socialist and the (D) party to say he got nothing done or took to long. By the time he got around to financial reform, American's weren't paying attention the GOP was able to vote against it as part of their anti-big government narrative.

Had he started with financial reform, he would've been able to take advantage of the electorate's anger and the GOP wouldn't possibly have been able to oppose it. It would've happened much faster than healthcare, setting him up for an early, bipartisan win. The healthcare battle would've been tricky, but much less so.

Everything else is on the margin; but sequencing the activity this way has enabled a narrative to emerge that Obama is a do-nothing socialist, all evidence to the contrary.

Claudia Lemire

Well said, I still think though, that it was a mistake to be president this term, I feel like he is a "manchurian candidate" I am not talking about him being brainwashed , I think he was chosen just because he was a perfect PR person for the US, great smile, very likable, family man, african american, great orator, etc, and it worked people all over the world went crazy. I actually think he could achieve a lot, he is a man of integrity but it wasn't his time, for obvious reasons and he is making mistakes as you mention above.

Phil_King

What gets me most, and is a pattern I've watched for a number of decades now, is the tendency of so-called "fiscal conservatives" to run up costs and generally cause mayhem, while the so-called "social liberals" come in and fix the problem. Then for some unknown reason, people vote in the so-called conservatives again.

You see it in Canada and the US over and over again, and I can't figure out how this dichotomous and obviously contradictory process can propogate itself continuously as it appears to have done.

The only balanced budget in the US in the past few decades came from Bill Clinton's Democrats.

In Canada it was Chretien's Liberals.

Other than that we've had conservative deficits, and you'd have to go back 27 years to find a Liberal PM in Canada that ran a deficit of their own making, and in the US you'd have to go back 33 years to find a Democrat that ran a deficit of his own making.

Facts are facts. If you want a balanced budget these days, you vote Liberal or Democrat.

hosertohoosier

It seems that you are employing selective reasoning here. On the one hand you let Obama off the hook for his deficit (which is far larger than the deficit under Bush), while you do not give Harper the same treatment.

Secondly, your framing of the Clinton years ignores the 1994 Republican revolution. Losing congress gave the deficit hawk Gingrich Republicans control of the house. The GOP-controlled house successfully pushed for spending cuts, which were generally larger than what Clinton wanted. In the United States the clearer picture is that divided government results in lower deficits.

US deficit % of GDP
Unified
1993: -5.1%
1994: -3.7% (largely driven by recovery)
Divided
1995: -3.3%
1996: -2.3%
1997: -0.9%
1998: 0.3%
1999: 0.7%
2000: 1.5%

Unified
2001: -0.6%
2002: -4%
2003: -5.5%
2004: -4.4%
2005: -3.3%
2006: -2.2%
Divided
2007: -2.8%
2008: -6.5%
Unified
2009: 9.91%
2010: 10.64%

Thirdly, you ignore deficit reduction under the Mulroney Tories. By 1989, the Mulroney government had nearly cut the deficit as a % of GDP in half (from 8.2% in 1983 to 4.6%). The recession of the early 90's temporarily reduced revenues and meant an increased welfare burden, but once the economy recovered, further reductions also took place.

hosertohoosier

If the right wants to take out Obama, they are indeed peaking too early. If the Democrats barely held onto the house and senate they would retain full responsibility for the next two years, albeit without a filibuster proof majority. A Republican house will force negotiation and shared responsibility between the Democrats and Republicans. It will force the Republicans to make the tough choices that are inherent to being in power. Should the GOP fail to do so, voters will become angry, just as they did in response to the shutdown, or the impeachment attempt.

Moreover, by constraining Obama's ability to move to the left, they will enhance his electability. Issues like deficit reduction that both parties can agree on will tend to prevail, rather than ideologically narrow agendas (eg. more spending on social programs or more tax cuts). Under divided government there is less incentive to spend spend spend because you have to share credit for largesse. Indeed, the division of credit (and blame) will also give Obama a hedge in the case of a double-dip recession.

Lets compare the re-election rate of presidents entering their second election with divided government versus unified government:

Divided (* indicates lost the house in first midterm):
Clinton (won in 1996)*
Bush Sr. (lost in 1992)
Reagan (won in 1984)*
Nixon (won in 1972)
Eisenhower (won in 1956)*
Truman (won in 1948)*

Unified
Bush (won in 2004)
Carter (lost in 1980)
LBJ (dropped out in 1968 because he was going to lose)

It helps to have a scapegoat.

Sea Otter

I absolutely agree with your premise that divided government could potentially help Obama be re-elected in 2012. My question is his willingness and ability to follow the Clinton playbook.

Phil_King

hosertohoosier: The reason I don't give Harper credit is because I believe he spent us into a deficit BEFORE the global recession hit, and besides that he's grown spending by over 7% per year since taking power, while cutting consumption taxes instead of income taxes, which I think encourages over consumption at the same time as it robs people of the choice to spend or save.

I'll admit the US example is in many ways more complicated than in Canada, given the power of their multiple federals levels of government, so perhaps I should concede that direct comparisons aren't accurate.

Needless to say however, if the trend continues as it has for the past three decades, then clearly electing a Democratic President or Canadian Liberal Prime Minister is the best way to ensure a balanced budget in either of the two countries.

In the US specifically, if what you suggest is correct, a Democratic President is best balanced by a house in Republican control, but I'm still skeptical.

hosertohoosier

But Canada ran a small surplus (0.2% of GDP) in 2008, despite the recession, and Harper was widely panned for proposing very little additional spending during the 2008 election campaign.
Brad Sallows

Too many people on comment boards "believe" things about Canada's federal fiscal picture over the past 40 years and not enough bother to take the time to "know". Some even "forget" from where the calls for increased spending originate.

Tony

You bet it is on the line, but Republicans need to produce – and if you were an American at this point who cares who calls themselves what. The Republicans can vilify Obama all they want ( and I admit Obama walked into a quagmire – 2 wars – a full-on recession). But the Republicans can hang on to the 'hated' teapartiers for awhile, but if they don't produce, then things get interesting, not just for Americans, but their closest neighbors – welcome to the empire.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time
Emily

Today's Newsweek poll indicates the opposite
http://nw-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/1004-ftop.p…

(Scroll down to the end for the generic support question)

Among all Respondents: Rep 27% Dem 35% Ind 29%

Registered Voters: Rep 32% Dem 36% Ind 27%
http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

Analysis: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/gallup_vs_newsweek_…

And remember, because of the Voting Rights Act, the Republican vote is way more efficient.
Crit_Reasoning

Well, I guess that settles it. The Democrats are going to win landslide victories in November.

Oh, wait a second. That Newsweek poll question wasn't asking about voting intention. It asks: "In politics TODAY, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or Independent?"

Perhaps a lot of those registered "Independent" voters will end up voting Republican. Sounds crazy, I know…
Emily

LOL generic polls are the least predictive, which is why they vary.

Nov elections, however, are not generic.

If the Repub vote was more 'efficient' you'd be grousing about president McCain right now.
http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

Well, 2000 showed that it was, then.

But that's not what I'm talking about at all. This is a funny historical artifact that plays a major role in congressional elections.

The courts' interpretation of certain provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requires that certain congressional districts in Southern states be drawn so that they are substantially — or almost entirely — non-white.

The theory was that white voters would not support non-white candidates, and that this was necessary to have any minority representation in the congress.

What it does do, however, is artificially create majority black districts which Democrats carry with 90% of the vote.

This is why you see the Voting Rights Act get renewed each time (1982, 2007) with 95% majorities, even though it is no longer needed to break the logjam of voter registration. Democrats like it as a symbol of the Civil Rights Movement, and Republicans like it because it elects more Republicans by requiring gerrymandering that favours them.

In the 1996, 1998, and 2000 elections, for instance, Democrats won the popular vote in congressional elections but the Republicans maintained their (narrow) majority. Why? Their vote is more efficient — mandated by liberals on the Supreme Court of the 1970s, ironically enough.
Emily

That's nice.

Won't help, but it's nice
Emily

Yes, that's why I said generic polling is the least predictive, and that's why they vary.
http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

It's baked in the cake already. A tied popular vote (or slim Democratic plurality) means a Republican congressional majority.

Doesn't mean it'll happen, but it's an easier hill to climb.
Emily

It's also wrong, Tiger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#Ge…
jdude

/agreed.
http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

'Tisn't:
http://redistrictingfacts.com/voting-rights-act/

"No redistricting plan may have a retrogressive impact on minority voting strength (e.g. by eliminating majority-minority districts or, in some circumstances, reducing minority vote share in majority-minority districts)."

The provisions are good at protecting African-American voting strength — not at creating the maximum number of winnable seats for Democrats.
http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

See also a Democratic popular plurality with Republican congressional majority:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_…

I misremembered 1998 and 2000 — they had razor-thin GOP popular pluralities.

Ah, here's why — Senate votes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate…

Anyway. Tie votes still trend to the right, for now.
Cats

They don't actually vary all that much.

Newsweek didn't do a generic congressional ballot poll. They polled to find out the electorate composition which is useless info because D's can vote for R's and I's never for I's they usually split at the last minute for either R"s or D's.

Two pollsters do generic congressional ballot polling – Rasmussen and Gallup. Generally Rasmussen is 2 or 3 points more favourable to Republicans.

The Republican lead has been relatively stable all this year. Amazingly so actually.

Emils i'm afraid you really don't know what you're talking about.

Stick to your knitting k ?

CATS!
Cats

Hey Ben ?

Don't bother. Honestly. She won't give an inch. She honestly believes that the Republicans aren't heading for a massive win this fall.

Every informed commentator knows that a tied generic congressional ballot gives the Republicans control of the house. A 10 point lead would give them about 60-80 seats, around 35 needed for pickup.

Best fishes.
Emily

Tossed by the Supremes….as a blogger you should be more familiar with your material.
Thwim

Except you don't need to fool all of them all of the time to be able to do enormous damage. You only need to fool enough of them for just long enough to get you into power.
PolJunkie

"and I admit Obama walked into a quagmire – 2 wars – a full-on recession…"

He didn't just walk into a quagmire, he walked into an impossible situation. Jesus Christ himself wouldn't be able to get re-elected with those conditions, especially in America. We are talking about a population that still expects to receive tax cuts despite their current economic conditions.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time"

You don't need to fool all of the people, just the ones who show up at the polls during the mid-terms and that has traditionally been in the low 40% range. Add the Tea Party effect to the mix and you can be sure that nothing short of a miracle will save the Dems this november.

Miracles do happen but I, for one, am putting my money on the stupidity of those who are quick to forget who put them in this economic position to begin with.
bergkamp

"Maybe they’re peaking early … "

You are reading too much Parisella propaganda, Wells, if you think Repubs are peaking too early.

This Rich Lowry article was pretty good at explaining why Dems are in for world of hurt in a couple of months. Dems assumed a socialist revolution was in the cards when they won control of Congress in '06 and Presidency in '08 but they misread electorate and now they are paying for their hubris.

Also, it is beyond pathetic to still be blaming Bush because few independents/moderates are going to be persuaded by it's Bush's fault argument after Dems nationalized Wall St and the health care/auto industries. I wonder if Obama wants to be one term president like Carter – Obama has socialized medicine and might think that's enough before he retires and earn pots of money on speech circuit like Clinton.

"In the last 20 months, Democrats have had the power to do almost everything they want, except command the allegiance of the public. That has made them and their allies feel embattled, isolated and perpetually aggrieved. They act like a forlorn minority at the same time they control every lever of elective power in Washington.

The ultimate source of the Democrats' discontent is quite simple: They've lost independents. In 1994, in taking Congress, Republicans won independents by 14 percentage points. In 2006, in taking it back, Democrats won independents by 18 points. In the latest Gallup survey, Republicans lead among independents by 11 points, a trend that puts at risk Nancy Pelosi's misbegotten speakership." NY Post, Aug 27, 2010
Emily

I don't recall predicting anything about the Nov vote. You lot are so confused you 'read in' things that aren't there.

I said it doesn't matter.
Emily

Your enthusiasm gets in the way of your reasoning.

Which, for a cat, isn't unusual.
jarrid

On the other hand, perhaps American voters are simply ingrates.

How dare they turn their backs on Obama. Surely the tall foreheads at the Nobel Foundation couldn't possibly have screwed up by jumping the gun in awarding Obama the 2009 Peace Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

To those who forget, Obama was nominated for the aforementioned prize just 12 days after his inauguration.

What. A. Joke. You'd think awarding the same prize to the credibility-riddled IPCC and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. in 2007 would be hard to beat but I think the tall foreheads have done it.
John D

You are reading too much Parisella propaganda, Wells, if you think Repubs are peaking too early.

I think it's called sarcasm.
TJCook

I started playing the Republican Talking Points Drinking Game at the beginning of bergkamp's post and now I'm staggering drunk.
Emily

Whereas McCain would have had the US in yet another war by now.
jarrid

Another non sequitur from Emily.

Obama's ascension to the U.S. Presidency has made the world a more dangerous place,. just as it did when Jimmy Carter was president.

By the way, Jimmy Carter got a Nobel Peace Prize from the tall foreheads as well in 2002. LOL!

They should rename it the Nobel Dream Prize for the biggest dreamers. The awarding of the prize has so little do to with reality. Imagine that awarding a prize to someone who had literally done squat. It boggles the mind. It really does.
Emily

Another Con with problems connecting the dots. If you know your subject, you can discuss it without needing to have the basics explained to you every time.

The world is far less dangerous at the moment, stop listening to your paranoia.
sam

who put them in this economic position to begin with….

you mean the Democrats in Congress?