If the Democrats’ worst-case scenario comes true on Nov. 2, according to top election prognosticators, they won’t just lose the majority in both chambers of Congress, but in the House, the GOP could potentially end up with a 15-seat majority.
Republicans in the House need to net 39 seats to win control. Race predictor Stu Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report says the GOP gaining 55 seats is “quite possible,” Dr. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia says Republicans could pick up as many as 47 seats and the Cook Political Report says the GOP will win at least 35 seats.
“The worst case Election Day scenario for Democrats is losing both the House and Senate to the GOP,” says Isaac Wood, an editor for Sabato’s Crystal Ball. “Just a few months ago neither of these seemed poised to change hands and even now many are wondering if the Senate is really in play. The economic news keeps getting worse for Democrats and if it continues on that path, we could be moving towards that worst-case scenario.”
As for the Senate, Sabato acknowledged last week for the first time that Republicans have a shot — even though the chances are not good — at winning a majority in the upper chamber by picking up the 10 seats needed to win control. Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report also wrote that “the possibility of a GOP takeover is growing,” arguing the GOP has six seats in the bag with chances to win in states like Colorado, California, Wisconsin, Washington and Nevada.
While these election analysts doubt the GOP can pull it off, in a worst-case scenario, the Republicans could win the Senate plus two seats to spare. “The absolute highest they could go is a 12-seat gain,” Wood said, while stipulating that it was a “very unlikely scenario.”
These positive prognostications for the GOP come on the heels of other positive news for the Party: In the history of Gallup polling, Republicans have never held as wide a margin over Democrats as they do now, according to the results of last week’s generic poll of party preferences of registered voters. An ABC News/Washington Post poll this week shows Republicans leading Democrats by 13 percent, the widest GOP margin since 1981 for the poll.
Showing posts with label 2010 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010 election. Show all posts
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Pocketbook issues will be decisive; other issues not so much
Watching the news, Americans could be forgiven if they thought the November elections were a referendum on the New York mosque controversy.
Before the mosque took center stage, the elections were centered on Charlie Rangel's scandal, gay marriage, the immigration debate, the BP oil spill. Next week it will be something else.
So many headlines, so little real impact. Actually, there's nothing special about the way 2010 is leaning. It is a classic, pocketbook-hurting, message-sending midterm election.
How could it be otherwise? With millions unemployed, millions more under-employed, a vicious recession in the recent past and a possible double-dip underway, people are focused on the bread and butter of their lives.
Even if Democrats are blameless for these affairs, they are the party in power. Voting against them is a logical, time-honored response from weary, unhappy citizens who have run out of patience. Whatever you think of the stimulus bill, health care reform, and cap-and-trade, the main cause of Democratic distress isn't promoting liberal legislation but simply being in charge when bad things are happening to the nation's economy.
Goodness knows, the election won't signal that voters have fallen in love with the Republicans. Every poll shows that Americans don't like or trust either party right now.
People don't want to reward the Democrats for what they see as underperformance after overpromising on the economy. At the same time, most Americans have no desire to put the Tea Party-influenced Republicans in charge. So people will let the parties fight it out in D.C. by giving each side some turf.
Americans know what they're getting with split-party control. Since Dwight Eisenhower took the White House in 1952, one party has been fully in charge of the executive and legislative branches for just 20 of the 58 years. Obama was lucky enough to have swollen Democratic majorities for his first two years as President, and he has legislative accomplishments to show for it. It's a good thing for him, too, because even if he serves two terms, the President will almost certainly never have the party margins to do much again.
Before the mosque took center stage, the elections were centered on Charlie Rangel's scandal, gay marriage, the immigration debate, the BP oil spill. Next week it will be something else.
So many headlines, so little real impact. Actually, there's nothing special about the way 2010 is leaning. It is a classic, pocketbook-hurting, message-sending midterm election.
How could it be otherwise? With millions unemployed, millions more under-employed, a vicious recession in the recent past and a possible double-dip underway, people are focused on the bread and butter of their lives.
Even if Democrats are blameless for these affairs, they are the party in power. Voting against them is a logical, time-honored response from weary, unhappy citizens who have run out of patience. Whatever you think of the stimulus bill, health care reform, and cap-and-trade, the main cause of Democratic distress isn't promoting liberal legislation but simply being in charge when bad things are happening to the nation's economy.
Goodness knows, the election won't signal that voters have fallen in love with the Republicans. Every poll shows that Americans don't like or trust either party right now.
People don't want to reward the Democrats for what they see as underperformance after overpromising on the economy. At the same time, most Americans have no desire to put the Tea Party-influenced Republicans in charge. So people will let the parties fight it out in D.C. by giving each side some turf.
Americans know what they're getting with split-party control. Since Dwight Eisenhower took the White House in 1952, one party has been fully in charge of the executive and legislative branches for just 20 of the 58 years. Obama was lucky enough to have swollen Democratic majorities for his first two years as President, and he has legislative accomplishments to show for it. It's a good thing for him, too, because even if he serves two terms, the President will almost certainly never have the party margins to do much again.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
As Democrat pessimism grows, some say House will be lost
Top Democrats are growing markedly more pessimistic about holding the House, privately conceding that the summertime economic and political recovery they were banking on will not likely materialize by Election Day.
In conversations with more than two dozen party insiders, most of whom requested anonymity to speak candidly about the state of play, Democrats in and out of Washington say they are increasingly alarmed about the economic and polling data they have seen in recent weeks.
They no longer believe the jobs and housing markets will recover — or that anything resembling the White House’s promise of a “recovery summer” is under way. They are even more concerned by indications that House Democrats once considered safe — such as Rep. Betty Sutton, who occupies an Ohio seat that President Barack Obama won with 57 percent of the vote in 2008 — are in real trouble.
In two close races, endangered Democrats are even running ads touting how they oppose their leadership.
“Democrats kept thinking: ‘We’re going to get better. We’re going to get well before the election,’” said one of Washington’s best-connected Democrats. “But as of this week, you now have people saying that Republicans are going to win the House. And now it’s starting to look like the Senate is going to be a lot closer than people thought.”
A Democratic pollster working on several key races said, “The reality is that [the House majority] is probably gone.” His data show the Democrats’ problems are only getting worse. “It’s spreading,” the pollster said.
Not all Democrats — or Republicans, for that matter — share this pessimistic assessment 68 days before the election. Republicans need to pick up 39 seats, and polls show most voters still have a downbeat view of the GOP’s ability to govern any better than Democrats. Republicans have been out-raised and outspent at the national level and in many of the key races.
In conversations with more than two dozen party insiders, most of whom requested anonymity to speak candidly about the state of play, Democrats in and out of Washington say they are increasingly alarmed about the economic and polling data they have seen in recent weeks.
They no longer believe the jobs and housing markets will recover — or that anything resembling the White House’s promise of a “recovery summer” is under way. They are even more concerned by indications that House Democrats once considered safe — such as Rep. Betty Sutton, who occupies an Ohio seat that President Barack Obama won with 57 percent of the vote in 2008 — are in real trouble.
In two close races, endangered Democrats are even running ads touting how they oppose their leadership.
“Democrats kept thinking: ‘We’re going to get better. We’re going to get well before the election,’” said one of Washington’s best-connected Democrats. “But as of this week, you now have people saying that Republicans are going to win the House. And now it’s starting to look like the Senate is going to be a lot closer than people thought.”
A Democratic pollster working on several key races said, “The reality is that [the House majority] is probably gone.” His data show the Democrats’ problems are only getting worse. “It’s spreading,” the pollster said.
Not all Democrats — or Republicans, for that matter — share this pessimistic assessment 68 days before the election. Republicans need to pick up 39 seats, and polls show most voters still have a downbeat view of the GOP’s ability to govern any better than Democrats. Republicans have been out-raised and outspent at the national level and in many of the key races.
Friday, July 16, 2010
His new book will enable George Bush to elbow his way into the headlines just in time to muddy a conservative GOP message
George Bush has positioned himself as the author of this year's October Surprise. To surprise us, however, he would have to come across as a conservative, and nothing in his past suggests such an unlikely course.
He has not received the discredit he deserves for the sorry condition of the American economy, the gigantism of its government, or the high-handedness that Washington officials demonstrate toward American citizens and state and local institutions on a daily basis.
We are where we are because Bush took it upon himself, as president, to destroy the traditional housing market so that banks, other financial institutions, and two hiring halls for out-of-work Democrats, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, could compassionately distribute house mortgages to anyone who asked.
The vehicle for Bush's largesse, the Community Reinvestment Act, had already been in effect for 23 years when Bush assumed the presidency in 2001. In truth, however, it had never amounted to much, as is apparent in the accompanying illustration. That soon changed, as Bush called for higher and higher increases in home ownership.
Some questions remain unanswered. Why, for instance, was it compassionate to encourage borrowers to obtain mortgages when there was little or no chance that the borrowers could keep up the monthly payments?
Once the housing bubble had materialized, why was it compassionate to continue pushing out high-risk mortgages given the likelihood of an eventual bursting of the bubble?
In deliberately destroying a traditional housing market that had relied largely on local lenders who could assess credit worthiness, Bush and his allies contravened free market principles that were central to the founding. Through elections and commerce, the founders left it to individuals and families to determine who had power, what was produced, and who was eligible to borrow money.
Bush's free-wheeling, high-risk mortgage bazaar ran directly counter to that carefully crafted system.
Now, while still reeling from the housing market collapse, we have to contend with an even more anti-market regime that believes government knows best, even as Arlington National Cemetery tries to correcr errors by matching corpses with the correct headstones.
While the arrogance, fascism and incompetence of the Obama administration is annoying, to say the least, it is having the effect anticipated by the founders. Free market, small government conservatives are again ascendant in the Republican Party, while the Tea Party provides strong conservative voices inside and outside the party.
Republicans appear to be heading for triumph in the November election.
So, the question arises: why is Bush publishing his book, Decision Points, shortly after the election, knowing that the publisher will start isssuing teasers to build interest in the book weeks earlier, during the campaign? A president known, and sometimes reviled, as a Big Government, big spending Republican apostate will elbow his way into the headlines at a time when a chastised Republican Party, under the watchful eye of the Tea Party, has a chance to return to power and place a tether on runaway government.
By doing so, Bush will muddy the Republican message, perhaps deliberately. After all, if the Republican Party makes a right turn, no more Bushes will be elected president. Conservatism is not to be found in their genes.
Steve Sailer in VDare.com
...the Community Reinvestment Act was negligible until the 1990s. And it was still small potatoes until the Clinton “reforms” of 1995 and the rise of well-organized pressure groups of the kind affiliated with the NCRC.
But the biggest flood of CRA assurances came during the presidency of George W. Bush, who repeatedly called in 2002-2004 for 5.5 million more minority homeowners by 2010. Cumulative bank pledges (typically doled out over ten years) grew from $1.85 trillion in 2002 to $4.20 trillion in 2004.
Indeed, total CRA commitments increased by $1.63 trillion in 2004 alone, the first year of the Housing Bubble.
(snip)
In 2004 alone, banks publicly promised to lend over the next decade to CRA-qualified minority and lower income neighborhoods the sum of $1,630,000,000,000.00.
That’s a big number.
And those kind of numbers put a lot of upward pressure on home prices as they got incorporated into expectations. Not surprisingly, the subsequent mortgage defaults that plunged the world into economic crisis are disproportionately concentrated in CRA-covered minority and lower income communities.
Using the NCRC’s data, I created this more readable graph to show CRA agreements by year from 1977-2004:
...the CRA has contributed to the mortgage disaster through a more subtle “selection effect”.
Assume there are two distinct kinds of bankers:
Optimists who think lending more money to CRA-approved folks will turn out to be profitable.
Pessimists who don’t.
Of course, there are always a lot of people in the middle without strong opinions who will go with the flow toward whichever camp seems to be gaining in money, power, and popularity.
If you were a Pessimist who didn’t believe that the government’s favored borrowers were likely to pay their mortgages, the CRA couldn’t make you lend to them. But if you didn’t play ball with the CRA, you couldn’t buy other banks, which is the easiest way for a bank to get big.
And the CEOs of big banks get paid more:
"There continues to be a high correlation between CEO compensation and bank asset size, and no correlation with three-year [earnings-per-share] growth and shareholder returns,’ Citigroup banking analyst Ruchi Madan wrote in a May 6, 2005 report on bank executive pay.”[Are reforms working? Experts say link between pay, performance is lacking, By Len Boselovic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 15, 2005]
See how it works?
Not surprisingly, over the years the CRA’s chokehold on mergers changed the culture of banking. The most powerful and highest paid executives publicly saluted the CRA, while the CEOs who thought it was politically correct nonsense were relegated to the sidelines in the great game of mergers and acquisitions.
The optimists who agreed with Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama that “underserved” minorities would somehow come up with the scratch to pay off their mortgages were allowed to build empires, while the pessimists were not. Those in the middle camp went with the flow and started believing the CRA propaganda.
Q. Whom do we want to win: the Optimists or the Pessimists?
A. Neither! We want a financial system in which the realists succeed and wind up in positions of power. Whether the realists will turn out to be this moment’s Optimists or the Pessimists is not something we should decide ahead of time.
But, that’s exactly what the Community Reinvestment Act does. It puts the government’s thumb heavily on the scale on the side of the Optimists, with, as we’ve seen, catastrophic results.
It’s time to repeal the CRA.
And it’s long past time to recognize the reality of human differences.
In 2006, commenting on Iraq, I wrote:
“Not for the first time, our public class’s refusal to think rationally about race and ethnic differences had resulted in bad—in this case, catastrophic—public policy.”
He has not received the discredit he deserves for the sorry condition of the American economy, the gigantism of its government, or the high-handedness that Washington officials demonstrate toward American citizens and state and local institutions on a daily basis.
We are where we are because Bush took it upon himself, as president, to destroy the traditional housing market so that banks, other financial institutions, and two hiring halls for out-of-work Democrats, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, could compassionately distribute house mortgages to anyone who asked.
The vehicle for Bush's largesse, the Community Reinvestment Act, had already been in effect for 23 years when Bush assumed the presidency in 2001. In truth, however, it had never amounted to much, as is apparent in the accompanying illustration. That soon changed, as Bush called for higher and higher increases in home ownership.
Some questions remain unanswered. Why, for instance, was it compassionate to encourage borrowers to obtain mortgages when there was little or no chance that the borrowers could keep up the monthly payments?
Once the housing bubble had materialized, why was it compassionate to continue pushing out high-risk mortgages given the likelihood of an eventual bursting of the bubble?
In deliberately destroying a traditional housing market that had relied largely on local lenders who could assess credit worthiness, Bush and his allies contravened free market principles that were central to the founding. Through elections and commerce, the founders left it to individuals and families to determine who had power, what was produced, and who was eligible to borrow money.
Bush's free-wheeling, high-risk mortgage bazaar ran directly counter to that carefully crafted system.
Now, while still reeling from the housing market collapse, we have to contend with an even more anti-market regime that believes government knows best, even as Arlington National Cemetery tries to correcr errors by matching corpses with the correct headstones.
While the arrogance, fascism and incompetence of the Obama administration is annoying, to say the least, it is having the effect anticipated by the founders. Free market, small government conservatives are again ascendant in the Republican Party, while the Tea Party provides strong conservative voices inside and outside the party.
Republicans appear to be heading for triumph in the November election.
So, the question arises: why is Bush publishing his book, Decision Points, shortly after the election, knowing that the publisher will start isssuing teasers to build interest in the book weeks earlier, during the campaign? A president known, and sometimes reviled, as a Big Government, big spending Republican apostate will elbow his way into the headlines at a time when a chastised Republican Party, under the watchful eye of the Tea Party, has a chance to return to power and place a tether on runaway government.
By doing so, Bush will muddy the Republican message, perhaps deliberately. After all, if the Republican Party makes a right turn, no more Bushes will be elected president. Conservatism is not to be found in their genes.
Steve Sailer in VDare.com
...the Community Reinvestment Act was negligible until the 1990s. And it was still small potatoes until the Clinton “reforms” of 1995 and the rise of well-organized pressure groups of the kind affiliated with the NCRC.
But the biggest flood of CRA assurances came during the presidency of George W. Bush, who repeatedly called in 2002-2004 for 5.5 million more minority homeowners by 2010. Cumulative bank pledges (typically doled out over ten years) grew from $1.85 trillion in 2002 to $4.20 trillion in 2004.
Indeed, total CRA commitments increased by $1.63 trillion in 2004 alone, the first year of the Housing Bubble.
(snip)
In 2004 alone, banks publicly promised to lend over the next decade to CRA-qualified minority and lower income neighborhoods the sum of $1,630,000,000,000.00.
That’s a big number.
And those kind of numbers put a lot of upward pressure on home prices as they got incorporated into expectations. Not surprisingly, the subsequent mortgage defaults that plunged the world into economic crisis are disproportionately concentrated in CRA-covered minority and lower income communities.
Using the NCRC’s data, I created this more readable graph to show CRA agreements by year from 1977-2004:
...the CRA has contributed to the mortgage disaster through a more subtle “selection effect”.
Assume there are two distinct kinds of bankers:
Optimists who think lending more money to CRA-approved folks will turn out to be profitable.
Pessimists who don’t.
Of course, there are always a lot of people in the middle without strong opinions who will go with the flow toward whichever camp seems to be gaining in money, power, and popularity.
If you were a Pessimist who didn’t believe that the government’s favored borrowers were likely to pay their mortgages, the CRA couldn’t make you lend to them. But if you didn’t play ball with the CRA, you couldn’t buy other banks, which is the easiest way for a bank to get big.
And the CEOs of big banks get paid more:
"There continues to be a high correlation between CEO compensation and bank asset size, and no correlation with three-year [earnings-per-share] growth and shareholder returns,’ Citigroup banking analyst Ruchi Madan wrote in a May 6, 2005 report on bank executive pay.”[Are reforms working? Experts say link between pay, performance is lacking, By Len Boselovic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 15, 2005]
See how it works?
Not surprisingly, over the years the CRA’s chokehold on mergers changed the culture of banking. The most powerful and highest paid executives publicly saluted the CRA, while the CEOs who thought it was politically correct nonsense were relegated to the sidelines in the great game of mergers and acquisitions.
The optimists who agreed with Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama that “underserved” minorities would somehow come up with the scratch to pay off their mortgages were allowed to build empires, while the pessimists were not. Those in the middle camp went with the flow and started believing the CRA propaganda.
Q. Whom do we want to win: the Optimists or the Pessimists?
A. Neither! We want a financial system in which the realists succeed and wind up in positions of power. Whether the realists will turn out to be this moment’s Optimists or the Pessimists is not something we should decide ahead of time.
But, that’s exactly what the Community Reinvestment Act does. It puts the government’s thumb heavily on the scale on the side of the Optimists, with, as we’ve seen, catastrophic results.
It’s time to repeal the CRA.
And it’s long past time to recognize the reality of human differences.
In 2006, commenting on Iraq, I wrote:
“Not for the first time, our public class’s refusal to think rationally about race and ethnic differences had resulted in bad—in this case, catastrophic—public policy.”
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Rep. Paul Ryan has a road map to U. S. solvency; who knew?
For Republicans, the road map authored by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is the most important proposal in domestic policy since Ronald Reagan embraced supply-side economics in the 1980 presidential campaign. It's not only the freshest, boldest, and most comprehensive Republican thinking, it's also the most relevant. If Republicans adopt the road map as their basic ideological blueprint, it offers them the prospect of a landslide in the midterm election this year, followed by victory in the presidential election in 2012.
(snip)
For now, the road map has a relatively small but growing cheering section. A dozen House members have endorsed it. Sen. Jim DeMint praised it in his book "Saving Freedom." Jeb Bush likes it. On CNN last week, economic historian Niall Ferguson called Ryan "a serious thinker on the Republican right who's prepared to grapple with these issues of fiscal sustainability and come up with a plan."
The plan would give everyone a refundable tax credit to buy health insurance, allow individual investment accounts to be carved out of Social Security, reduce the six income tax rates to two (10 and 25 percent), and replace the corporate tax (35 percent) with a business consumption tax (8.5 percent). And that's not the half of it.
As ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, Ryan was able to get the Congressional Budget Office to run the numbers in his plan. CBO concluded the plan would "make the Social Security and Medicare programs permanently solvent [and] lift the growing debt burden on future generations, and hold federal taxes to no higher than 19 percent of GDP." Pretty impressive results, I'd say.
The road map does one more thing. It would give Republicans an agenda if they gain control of the House or Senate in the midterm election -- or a mandate if they win both. "What's the point of winning an election if you don't have a mandate?" Ryan asks.
He doesn't expect a mandate in 2010. "I need to make sure these ideas survive this election," he says, and set the stage for "the most ideological, sea-changing election in our lifetime" in 2012. Merely survive in 2010? The road map can do better than that. How about thrive?
(snip)
For now, the road map has a relatively small but growing cheering section. A dozen House members have endorsed it. Sen. Jim DeMint praised it in his book "Saving Freedom." Jeb Bush likes it. On CNN last week, economic historian Niall Ferguson called Ryan "a serious thinker on the Republican right who's prepared to grapple with these issues of fiscal sustainability and come up with a plan."
The plan would give everyone a refundable tax credit to buy health insurance, allow individual investment accounts to be carved out of Social Security, reduce the six income tax rates to two (10 and 25 percent), and replace the corporate tax (35 percent) with a business consumption tax (8.5 percent). And that's not the half of it.
As ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, Ryan was able to get the Congressional Budget Office to run the numbers in his plan. CBO concluded the plan would "make the Social Security and Medicare programs permanently solvent [and] lift the growing debt burden on future generations, and hold federal taxes to no higher than 19 percent of GDP." Pretty impressive results, I'd say.
The road map does one more thing. It would give Republicans an agenda if they gain control of the House or Senate in the midterm election -- or a mandate if they win both. "What's the point of winning an election if you don't have a mandate?" Ryan asks.
He doesn't expect a mandate in 2010. "I need to make sure these ideas survive this election," he says, and set the stage for "the most ideological, sea-changing election in our lifetime" in 2012. Merely survive in 2010? The road map can do better than that. How about thrive?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
RCP analayst: Dems could lose 80 to 90 House seats
I think those who suggest that the House is barely in play, or that we are a long way from a 1994-style scenario are missing the mark. A 1994-style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility - not merely a far-fetched scenario - that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn't be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.
American exceptionalism making comeback? 2010 election expected to resolve gw science fraud
Only a thorough investigation will be able to document that there was really no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented record is based on data manipulation involving the selection of certain weather stations (and the omission of others that showed no warming), plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.
How to confirm this? The only possibility may be an investigation by the U.S. Congress. Not this Congress, of course. But after the November 2010 elections, control of important committees like Science may change. Hearings that use real experts can then unravel ClimateGate, demonstrate the manipulation of temperature data, and once and for all destroy the "warming trend" on which the IPCC has based its fanciful conclusion of anthropogenic global warming.
Once accomplished, it will become possible to do away with the myth that CO2 is a pollutant and all of the controls and regulations that are based on this mistaken notion. Yes, that includes EPA's Endangerment Finding on CO2 and all cap-and-tax legislation. The nation, and indeed the world, will be better off.
The writer, an atmospheric physicist, is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years, a NY Times bestseller.
How to confirm this? The only possibility may be an investigation by the U.S. Congress. Not this Congress, of course. But after the November 2010 elections, control of important committees like Science may change. Hearings that use real experts can then unravel ClimateGate, demonstrate the manipulation of temperature data, and once and for all destroy the "warming trend" on which the IPCC has based its fanciful conclusion of anthropogenic global warming.
Once accomplished, it will become possible to do away with the myth that CO2 is a pollutant and all of the controls and regulations that are based on this mistaken notion. Yes, that includes EPA's Endangerment Finding on CO2 and all cap-and-tax legislation. The nation, and indeed the world, will be better off.
The writer, an atmospheric physicist, is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years, a NY Times bestseller.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Rasmussen: 70% angry with federal policies
How long can Americans hold a thought? That will be the political test for the next seven-and-a-half months.
If the majority of voters stay as angry as they are now about the passage of the national health care plan, it could spell real trouble for Democrats in the November elections. But if, as Democrats hope, the anger fades, then the losses by the president’s party are likely to be more manageable.
Right now, after a year of stimulus plans, bailouts and now nationalized health care, driving deficits to historically high levels, 70% of voters are angry with the policies of the federal government. That includes 48% who are very angry.
If the majority of voters stay as angry as they are now about the passage of the national health care plan, it could spell real trouble for Democrats in the November elections. But if, as Democrats hope, the anger fades, then the losses by the president’s party are likely to be more manageable.
Right now, after a year of stimulus plans, bailouts and now nationalized health care, driving deficits to historically high levels, 70% of voters are angry with the policies of the federal government. That includes 48% who are very angry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
