Election News

Howard Dean has sent out an e-mail about two candidates he's backing this year--Jack Conway in Kentucky and Roxanne Conlin of Iowa. You might add Elaine Marshall in North Carolina to the list of worthy Senate candidates. Jack Conway has attracted attention because he's running against libertarian-Tea Party favorite Rand Paul. Roxanne Conlin is an attorney, and former Attorney-General of Iowa who is challenging Senator Grassley, who just voted against Wall Street Reform as well as Healthcare Reform. Grassley also has the distinction of showcasing stimulus projects in Iowa as his own, when he voted against the package. Conlin is a longshot but Grassley's state approval rate has dipped below 50% and he can be had. Elaine Marshall is another attractive candidate in North Carolina. She grew up on a farm and encouraged by 4H she was the first of her family to go to college. Again as an attorney-general, she actually defended the public interest. Her opponent is Senator Burr ,who has amassed a $6 million war chest. But all three--Conway, Conlin and Marshall make excellent candidates and have run ads that are professional but straight forward. If they can keep their opponents' lead below 10 in the next two months, they have a real shot.

Karl Rove's group is running ads against Harry Reid protesting that Harry hasn't brought home enough of the stimlus bacon to Nevada. I guess the fact that Sharron Angle says her job will not be to create jobs in Nevada, this must leave voters confused. Does Karl mean that Nevada should have a better Democratic Senator? Harry has taken a 7 point lead over Angle in the race according to the Mason-Dixon poll.

I thought it was interesting that Charlie Cook has switched his ratings on the Diaper Dave Vitter race to "leaning Republican". Apparently, Vitter appointing an aide who stabbed his girlfriend as someone in charge of "women's affairs" finally provoked a full slate of primary challengers. The idea that Charlie Melancon ,the Democrat, has a shot at the Louisiana seat is rather surprising and welcomed news.

I'm surprised that Democrats are anticipating Republican attack lines better than they used to. In Ohio, Democrats have jumped John Kasich, who used to brag about his work on Wall Street but now claims he just ran a two-man office for Lehman Brothers in Columbus. The Democrats pre-emptive ad has neutralized Kasich's attempt to minimize his involvement with the Wall Street scandal. Likewise, in Illinois, Democrats have badly wounded Republican favorite for Senate Mark Kirk by pointing out his inconsistencies on his war record. Indeed, the candidate will not even speak to the press. The Democrats destroyed Sue Lowden in Nevada by highlighting her chicken barter idea for healthcare. Now in Oregon, former NBA player Chris Dudley is in retreat as he is trying to avoid discussing any issues when Democrats and the press started raising questions about what in the state budget he would cut if elected Governor. The same seems to apply to Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon, the former owner of the World Wrestling Federation. She had been given a free pass but now questions are being asked about her stands on issues. The local newspaper even dug up her investments in oil companies dealing with Iran.

President Obama has come out in a campaign mode by addressing Republican obstructionism head-on as in his weekly television address. Perhaps the most effective campaigner from the White House so far has been Joe Biden. He likened the newfound concern of Republicans on the national debt as "arsonists expressing concerns about fire safety". Biden has been one of the best salesmen for the benefits of the stimulus package and the laundry list of achievements of the Administration. My problem is that he has oversold the amount of new jobs being created, which may come back and bite the Democrats.

The DNC circulated a memo this week written by Brad Woodhouse, their Communications Director, on "Putting Voter Sentiment and Recent Polls in their Proper Perspective". Their basic aim was to calm Democrats down about a possible repeat of 1994 or 2006 when the party in power lost Congress. They claim that there is greater support for Democratic leaders and more trust in the Democratic leadership than for the party in power in either of those election cycles.

President Obama is much more popular than President Bush in 2006 and Clinton in 1994. It also can be said he's more popular than Reagan in 1982, another serious recession year.

More voters trust the President and Congressional Democrats to lead the country than trust the Republicans to do so. This is always the missing element in news coverage of the polls that point out the lack of confidence in President Obama and the Democrats. The bottom rung here has been occupied by the Republicans at about 26% for the last 18 months.

On the economy--which is rated the number 1 concern by voters--Democrats are trusted more than Republicans 42%-34%. This is a similar margin to the Democrat win in 2006 and a larger margin than the Republicans had in their 1994 win. This is a key number to get a handle on what will happen in the fall.

Voters also trust Democrats' legislative efforts to improve the American economy and to move the country forward in other ways. A Bloomberg poll found that 58% of voters are more likely to support a Congressional candidate that "supports spending government money to create jobs and stimulate employment" while just 24% said they were less likely. The Washington Post found that 39% of voters are more likely to support a candidate who supports the Recovery, as against 37% who opposed.

According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 51% are more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate who says they will give health care a chance, while 44% said they would vote for a Republican candidate who says it should be repealed. In another poll, a majority now support the healthcare bill.

Given the recent Wall Street Reform bill, Bloomberg found that 45% of voters are more likely to suppport a Congressional candidate who supports "tougher regulations on Wall Street firms" while only 15% would be less likely to support such a candidate.

The generic congressional polls show leads either way. The DNC uses the latest Washington Post poll that showed Republicans with a 47-46% edge. In contrast, the 2006 polls, when democrats won back the House showed Democrats with a 54-41% lead over Republicans.

In short, the conclusion of a Republican takeover of Congress at this stage are not borne out by the polling data, even though all of the Washington pundits make it a foregone conclusion. For the past year, I have been pointing out Republican approval ratings in Congress are abysmal. Republican leadership in both the Senate and the House are lucky on any given week to rise above 30%. I agree that this year is chaotic with the teabagging phenomenon and the rise of the Hard Right but I have yet to see evidence of this promised tsunami of reaction.

This past week the Republican leadership may have been courting their donors for more campaign funds with calls to repeal Wall Street Reform and a moratorium on federal regulations. But I can't believe this gives them any popular momentum. Notice for instance how quiet the Tea baggers have been over the Wall Street Reform bill. Only the corporate funded branch in D.C. mounted half-hearted protests. I also sense that the national debt issue will not redound to their favor. Several polls I've written about indicate that people are not buying the need to cut social security or Medicare. Instead, they are walking over the Republican national security creds by demanding cuts in defense and war.

I still say wait until after Labor Day before we know what's really happening. I'm basically pleased to see that various polls indicate that Americans, however stressed they are, are keeping level heads on the political front. I also believe that the flood of corporate money to Republicans is not going to be a political asset but a liability this year.