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.