Call It A Comeback
I used to think that Crazy Black Republican only described one man (there are many black Republicans, just most aren’t crazy). There is clearly another:
Quick, get him to move to Calumet City and run for something IRP. He’s articulate!
I was frankly shocked at the above results. Other presidents have suffered low approval ratings, and President Bush still stands above the lows of four of the ten other post-war presidents. But I had not appreciated how much the current approval is below other mid-term approval ratings, even without extrapolating current trends. We have simply never seen a president this unpopular going into a midterm election.
I will be surprised if the current rate of decline continues. But I will also be surprised by a sustained upturn at the rate of November-January. Either would be an extreme outcome. But approval between the upper 20s and lower 30s seems entirely plausible. There is no precedent for a midterm with approval at those levels.
The magnitude of the approval rating deviation is simply amazing. Reagan in 1982 was above 40% approval. Clinton in 1994 was a little below 50.
More importantly, in 1982 Republicans ran away from Reagan in many cases. In 1994, Democrats wouldn’t be seen with Clinton in many, many places. Yet, Republican candidates don’t appear to be distancing themselves to any significant degree. They don’t appear with the President, but few are truly challenging his policies. If this turns into a referendum on George Bush, it’ll be an electoral disaster for Republicans and it appears to be shaping up as a referendum on George Bush. Even if Bush improves and stays in the mid-thirties–that will be the lowest midterm Presidential approval since polling began.
Models of political outcomes work because most of the time, there is a general stability to the political system and change is somewhat incremental. As Charles points out, extraordinary events such as 9-11 can alter those patterns. In terms of the fall election, we are entering a world where the President’s approval appears to break the pattern of every midterm election since scientific polling started to take place. How that effects the ultimate outcome is nearly impossible to predict and that should frighten the Republican National Committee a lot.
Add to it, Abramoff and MZM scandals hitting Members of Congress and what seems like a likely indictment of Karl Rove and the Republican political environment can only be called toxic.
Charlie Cook adds to the woes in discussing the numbers related to voter intensity in a recent poll:
“Most likely voters” were those who, when asked on a scale of one (low) to 10 (high) how interested they were in the November midterm elections, selected nine or 10. Among all registered voters, 50 percent described their level of interest as 10, but there was a huge discrepancy between the parties, with 54 percent of Democrats and 42 percent of Republicans choosing the highest number. Among independents, 47 percent chose 10. This double-digit intensity disparity between the two parties was also found in the March and April NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls.
Counting those who rated their interest as nine or 10 in our poll, 60 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of Republicans qualified as very likely voters; those levels are generally more reflective of a presidential race rather than turnout for a midterm election. If someone was looking for the best possible warning sign of a voter turnout problem for Republicans, the level of interest would be it. These numbers amount to a sharp departure from the last two elections, when Republican voters were more motivated than Democrats, and, in fact, turned out in higher numbers.
Many people have poo-pooed my prediction that this was shaping up to be like a 1994 year for Democrats. They were right, but for the wrong reasons. The way things stand now, the actual political environment will be worse for Republicans come November than it was for Democrats in 1994.
There are significant differences in how far a wave can take a party now because the reallignment of the South in 1994 was overdue. Likely Democrats will pick up Democratic seats in the Northeast that are essentially Democratic districts and some suburban Districts will turn.
In terms of Illinois, I’ll make a few predictions barring dramatic changes in the political environment. Barring an idictment close to him, Blagojevich will be re-elected. Mark Kirk is going to be the sleeper race giving Illinois Republicans three seats to defend seriously. Moderate Republican or not, if you base doesn’t show up in a Democratic leaning District you lose. Evans seat will stay Democratic. This would have happened anyway because Zinga is a bad candidate.
However, between IL-06, 08, and 11 Democrats will take at least two and possibly three of the races. Democrats have well funded challengers in 6, 10, and 11 and as Russ Stewart points out, incumbency is a huge advantage for Bean.
I think Russ is wrong in 6 because George Bush wouldn’t win in IL-06 right now and so if Roskam underperforms Bush, that’s the end of it. Roskam has to overperform Bush and yet, has shown no interest in distancing himself from the Administration other than not appearing with them. While it’s true that DuPage will be pushing for Birkett, not many people go to the polls for a Lt. Governor and Judy has her own base problems in the area.
Assuming the Trib has more on Giannoulias, the best hope for Republicans is that Giannoulias sticks it out for the whole race. Radogno will likely win that race, but given the political environment a replacement for Giannoulias might even beat her.
This year isn’t just bad in terms of the political environment for Republicans, it breaks the models.
PLEASE JOIN
CONGRESSWOMAN JAN SCHAKOWSKY
AT A
TOWN HALL MEETING ON THE IRAQ WAR
WITH SPECIAL GUEST
CONGRESSMAN JOHN MURTHA
SPONSOR OF H.J. RES. 73, CALLING FOR A
REDEPLOYMENT OF TROOPS FROM IRAQ
DATE: SUNDAY, MAY 7, 2006
TIME: 2:45 TO 4:00 p.m.
(Doors open at 2:15)
PLACE: McCORMICK AUDITORIUM IN
THE NORRIS UNIVERSITY CENTER
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, EVANSTON
His defense is that no one was stepping up to pay the bill so he had to do it.
Lie. He spent $1300 in “house cash” at the VIP Club which is something you pay for before you run up your tab, not after.
More interesting in the story (we already knew he was lying), is this line:
Smith’s political campaign also reimbursed the tabs with a check on Feb. 15.
Some of the charges were for political events and meetings, made during election season, Smith said. He admitted that the amount of personal charges made on the card could be considered over the top, but said none of the credit card statements were ever questioned before ? the village finance department would invoice him each month and he would cut a check to the village for the personal charges.
I tend to think the strip club spending is hysterical, but not illegal if he reimbursed. If, however, he was using town resources for campaigning or political events that’s a whole different story even if he did reimburse the town.
I wonder how many times Chicago Food and Beverage will show up now that people know that it is the VIP Club as well.
Hat Tip to New Lenox Views which just popped up as this scandal unfolded.
Let me point out that Smith not only did this, but has been consistently lying about the other $1300 since the story broke. I really would love to see his face when confronted on the fact that the $1300 was for the VIP Club after he insisted he didn’t remember the name of the establishment.
Don’t forget–this is El Geraldo’s campaign chair. Heh.
Domestic Beer $8
Lap Dance $20
Champagne Room $250 Entrance Fee (payable in $1 bills)
Having your evening broadcast to the world because you are so stupid you put it on the town credit card.
PRICELESS!
Someone has some ‘splaining to do…
New Lenox Mayor Michael Smith has a more of a problem than he thinks. In this post I pointed out his rather hysterical problem that he spent $1,462 in one night at a strip club on the New Lenox town credit card.
Mr. Smith didn’t quite come clean though when asked about the situation. I mean, given he wrote the reimbursement check from his and his wife’s account for $3,244 it was probably bad enough that he spent half of that at a strip club.
But that isn’t the whole story. The Trib reported:
A total of $1,300 was charged March 11. It’s listed under Chicago Food & Beverage, but Smith said he couldn’t recall the precise name of the restaurant.
If one were to call the VIP Club at 312-644-7400 (not work suitable if you are slow) and ask them how charges on your card appear if you were to take clients there, the answer is that for the admission fee and drinks, it appears as VIP Club. However, if you purchase what is described as ‘house cash’, it is charged as Chicago Food & Beverage. Hence, a nice round $1,300 on the New Lenox account.
So he spent a nice 2,762 at the VIP Club overnight on March 10-11. I hope someone got laid for that much. Not that I’m promoting prostitution, but for goodness sakes, if you are going to drop $2,700 in a few hours, someone should have gotten more than a dry hump or they are really pitiful.
Mr. Smith lied to the Trib, probably the other town officials and almost certainly to his wife.
To add more fun to the pot, it appears that El Geraldo’s office is saying that Smith was never actually the Campaign Chair. Let us remember that Smith gave the welcome at El Geraldo’s campaign kick off and was identified by the Home Town Morris Daily Herald as campaign chair. Unfortunate.
While I normally don’t care much, if the regular media picks up on this–I want some acknowledgement on this one. I at least have to explain to the wife why I’m calling strip clubs late at night.
Crossposted at Illinoize
The amount of political spam I get on immigration is higher than any other issue and it’s almost all anti-immigrant. It comes in an annoying flow of the same e-mail being copied and sent out by different people. I’m now up to 5 of them that regularly send the crap to me.
It’s strange targeting–I seldom get unsolicited items from conservatives in general, but on immigration, I have received a steady stream since not long after I started the blog.
Eric then points out the ordinal relationship of immigration on priority lists tends to show an increasing concern.
I understand Eric’s point, but I think using ordinal relationships in polling data obscures whether the public is changing its overall view of the issue or if there is simply movement around the issue.
This is my fault for not laying out the numbers in a bit of laziness, but let’s look at polling data since 2004 in terms of the number of people who identify immigration as a extremely/very important or similar language
Gallup Poll. Feb. 6-8, 2004. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.
immigration 55%
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). May 12-16, 2005. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.1 (for all adults).
Too Little Attention to Immigration 64%
Pew Research Center survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Jan. 4-8, 2006. N=approx. 750 adults nationwide. MoE ? 4
Making it tougher for illegal immigrants to enter the U.S.” 51 %
Gallup Poll. March 13-16, 2006. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.
“Illegal immigration” Great Deal 43 Fair Amount 29 Only a Little/Not A lot 28
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). April 21-24, 2006. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.1
“Well, if you had to choose just one, which do you think should be the top priority?”
Illegal immigration 11
CBS News Poll. April 28-30, 2006. N=719 adults nationwide. MoE ? 4.
“What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” Open-ende
Immigration 8
======================
In open-ended questions it has increased from neglible to somewhere between 8 and 11%. That’s significant certainly, but it also seems to be pretty tied to a small group of people who strongly care about the issue.
The overall concern over the issue seems to be pretty stable with all caveats about using different polling methodology and different questions.
So my interpretation is that while the overall numbers are pretty consistent, certainly the salience has increased amongst about 10% of the population.
When one looks at overall views on immigration, the numbers are remarkably consistent about the issue. Before 9-11 the polling shows a lower level of concern with the public hovering around 40% for reducing immigration. 9-11 demonstrates a change in the underlying population with a spike to 58% for reducing immigration, but then number settles down to about 50% for reducing immigration.
So while I was sloppy, I’d say that it seems that the public is pretty stable in its views on immigration with the exception of dramatic events that change the underlying dynamic. Since 2004, general public opinion is very stable. However, I was wrong in saying that salience is low all around since those thinking it is especially important has increased in open response questions.
There are a series of interesting question about whether salience is because the problem has changed or just because political entrepeneurs have raised the issue for political gain. Given the drop after 9-11 passed for support to decrease immigration, it seems to me to be more of a issue to motivate specific constituencies.
In fact, that seems certain given the top poll that shows 68% approval for a bill such as the Senate has generally been heading toward that allows for undocumenteds to stay and eventually apply for citizenship under specific circumstances.
For the change in immigration views overall:
USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 7-9, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.
Below the flip
Read More
I hope there wasn’t any sex in the Champagne Room.
What’s great is what triggered the paper to investigate:
The Star newspaper requested the AmEx invoice, along with the reimbursement check, at a time when the Finance Committee was debating Smith’s prepaid lodging expenses for a coming International Council of Shopping Centers convention in Las Vegas.
What Happens in Vegas……
Weller’s campaign must be a ball
Mayor Michael Smith of New Lenox, Weller?s campaign chairman, gave the welcome.
?I can always turn to Jerry for assistance, and he?s always there to give a hand ? that?s very, very important,? Smith told the gathering.
Given Weller’s ties to MZM co-conspirators that are at the center of the Duke Cunningham scandal who were apparently running a prostitution ring, there are lots of interesting questions to ask for an enterprising reporter.
ArchPundit