What's Going To Happen In November?

by DemFromCT

We've been putting up a series of poll posts because if one looks at the data, trends become more apparent. For example, in the Sour Mood post about the NBC/WSJ poll, we listed this response from those that took the poll, cautioning against rabid partisanship (but people say they don't like negative ads, even though they respond). Of course, our astute readers here have plenty to say about what really motivates voters. And now Gallup has more bad news for the GOP in their latest poll analysis.

Bush May Be Souring GOP's Mood for Fall Elections
Republican enthusiasm for midterm elections waning; Democrat interest high

A recent USA Today/Gallup survey finds Republican enthusiasm for the 2006 congressional elections waning at the same time that Democratic enthusiasm is at a record high. That disparity could have significant implications for voter turnout in the fall, therefore accentuating the relatively weak support seen for Republican candidates with the general electorate. In other words, the Democrats' greater enthusiasm makes a shift in power in Congress from Republican to Democratic control even more possible, given that turnout in midterm elections is usually a critical factor in the ultimate outcome.

According to the survey, conducted April 7-9, 2006, Democrats lead Republicans by 10 percentage points, 52% to 42%, among all registered voters as the party they are more likely to support in their local congressional race. Typically Republicans can count on higher turnout from their members to significantly contract Democrats' lead among all voters, but whether that happens in 2006 is currently in doubt.

When asked how they feel about voting in this year's congressional elections compared to previous years, the plurality of Republicans, 47%, now say they are less enthusiastic; only 33% say they are more enthusiastic. This is a sharp change from January, when the Republican numbers were nearly reversed; 47% were more enthusiastic and 32% less enthusiastic. Over the same period Democrats' enthusiasm has held constant, with 48% saying they are more enthusiastic and slightly fewer saying less enthusiastic.

I'm not surprised (after all, Bush has soured my mood for 5 years). But if every poll is picking up this 'sour mood' thing, and there's only one party in power, this has the makings of a political train wreck.  Now, every pundit and pundit wannabe will point out that there's a long time between now and November. But that means that there's more time for things to go even more wrong for Republicans. Republican scandals and Iraq and gas prices will not let up (and scandal may yet touch Condi, Mehlman or deeper into the WH). Bush will govern no better in the fall than in the spring. Hurricane season is coming, and FEMA is in disarray.

Perhaps the Republicans really should be advocating early elections, and cut their losses - oops, we don't have a parlimentary system, after all. And even if we did, Bush would have had a vote of no confidence long ago. Sour mood, indeed. The enthusiasm level (many pollsters such as Rasmussen track this frequently) is twice as strong for disapprove of Bush as approve and has been for weeks.

More from Gallup:

Bush to Blame?

Rather than reflecting specific displeasure with Congress, analysis of the Gallup data suggests that Republicans' lackluster enthusiasm about the fall elections may instead be due to discouragement with President George W. Bush.

Bush's approval rating among members of his own party is now just 74%, a record low for his administration. By comparison, the average approval rating for Bush among Republicans for his entire presidency is 91%, and was much closer to this level in early January, when 85% of Republicans approved.

The issue, therefore, is about turnout. It's hard to increase turnout for your party when voters realize that you are responsible for a failed presidency. And the message is simple. Just morph the local R congress critter into GWB come election time (a la Cleland and Bin Laden in 2002) in every way possible. That's enough to sour anyone.

Bottom Line

It is not clear whether there is a direct causal relationship between the job approval ratings a sitting president receives from members of his own party and the level of enthusiasm those partisans have for voting in a midterm election, but recent historical evidence suggests that the two are linked.

Perhaps lower approval of the president causes partisans to lose confidence in the ability of the president's party to be successful in the fall election, and thus leads to reduced enthusiasm for voting. Perhaps media speculation about the president's difficulties fuels this reaction. At the same time, sensing the possibility of victory, Democratic enthusiasm may be sparked.

Also, as Managing Editor Jeff Jones reported in his April 18 analysis (see related link), in the past three midterm elections there has not been a direct relationship between enthusiasm for voting and voter's likelihood of turning out (as determined by their "likely voter" score). Rather, higher enthusiasm among Republicans or Democrats is associated with a larger number of people identifying as members of that party, and vice versa.

Whatever the case, it appears that Bush will be an important factor in this fall's elections. Whether his lower approval ratings continue or if they increase could determine how many seats his party keeps.

Yeah, we know. And we're going to make sure everyone knows.

Written permission to use Gallup material with proper citing.

Comments

[mr anonymous]

Do you really think it's worth the effort for anyone to talk about Democratic party strategy for November, when the Republicans are protected by audit-free electronic voting? They are going to rig the outcome in their favor.

The Democrats have no chance of retaking the house or the senate while there is no ability to verify election outcomes. If you want to talk about Rovian misdirection, this is the biggest one of all - while the Democrats get gleeful about polls, he sits back and gets ready to pick the next Supreme Court justices.

And when people do grumble about this in November, it will be way too late.

They do not need to rig every district. Just enough to make the small difference they need.

(Or do you think the Republican party can be trusted with the elections process?)

[DemFromCT]

Do you really think it's worth the effort for anyone to talk about Democratic party strategy for November, when the Republicans are protected by audit-free electronic voting?

Yes.

[Mimikatz]

Absolutely it is worth it. Rove may be tied up with his own legal troubles. Same with Mehlman (phone jamming) and several congressmen. Today the WSJ covers the story that Brent Wilkes and Mitchell Wade provided prostitutes for Randy Cunningham, and other outlets are digging into a wider manifestation of the scandal. If it's sex, then it really matters.

Our side just needs to be vigilant, with lots of poll watchers. And no one has explained to me how, if hacking is so easy, why some lefty hacker hasn't done it somewhere in the Dems' favor?

[DemFromCT]

Maybe they have and they just balance out. Or like ebay, it's 'last one in' that counts.

The key is to not have 537-vote differences. With a 10,000 vote difference, the vagaries of election results won't matter.

[demtom]

The people who constantly moan about machines being permanently fixed (and they turn up at every site, if you wait long enough) are just a cosmetically-more-sophisticated version of the "why should I vote, my vote doesn't matter?" folk. Their only job is to breed despair.

DemfromCT is of course correct. If exit polls show a 10% victory, and actual results were to claim a reverse outcome, even the dullards in our press corps would understand there was corruption. It's our job to push up the margins so even the prospect of cheating like this (or other, more realistic vote manipulation, like long waits in Dem districts) becomes irrelevant.

[User]

"If exit polls show a 10% victory, and actual results were to claim a reverse outcome, even the dullards in our press corps would understand there was corruption."

Except in Ohio.

[Sara]

Actually it is important to make the integrity of the vote an issue in state and local elections, because the character of the Secretary of State or the County Commissioners who appoint Election Management are the first defense against corruption of the electorial process.

We must not allow ourselves to be influenced by the passive defeatists of the world.

On the other hand (and as I have said over and over again) Mid-term elections are profoundly local and state matters. National themes can be usefully introduced late in the campaign -- but for the next few months this is about nominating candidates, raising money and state and local organization. Congressional candidates need to pick the issues that work for their district -- and these well may not be nationally critical ones, but they are one of the elements around which you organize later Get Out the Vote efforts. Success is about just the right balance among Candidate Personality, Dynamics of the issues, and organization -- and you have to pay attention to all these matters.

[DemFromCT]

all true, Sara... and yet, atypically, this will also be a national mid-term like 1994. That's not enough; you have to do the things Sara outlined. And yet... WSJ/NBC poll:

In deciding whether to vote for your member of Congress, which is more important to you--your congressperson's position on national issues or your congressperson's performance in taking care of problems in your district?

National 43
Local 38

That's a reverse of previous polls.

[serena1313]

The integrity of the election "is" important including no thanks to DeLay's re-districting. Notwithstanding if the GOP voters are not enthused about their incumbent they may just not show up. But the voting machines are a problem. It only takes one person to hack into the system-- it is easy to do.

Something else I want to add as a suggestion: As we know, the overall approval percentage for the House is very, very low. With a large majority dissatisfied and unhappy with Congress overall voters may not be looking at the big picture. In other words if voters vote republican again then Congressional republicans maintain the majority and politics will remain politics as usual. It is important for people to associate the two. As a result it IMHO might influence dissatisfied republicans to either stay at home or vote for an independent or even possibly a democrat (gasp). Any of which would minimize the number of potential votes for the republican candidate.

Just a thought *S*

[DemFromCT]

it's a good thought. this may be a low turnout election favoring dems.

[Rick B]

My father, who graduated from college in 1927, used to say there was for years a sign on the wall in the British Foreign Office that said "There will be trouble in the Balkans in the Spring."

There should be a similar sign in every Democratic venue that says "There will be an October Surprise."

A military-related October Surprise is very likely to cause a jump in Republican turn-out. The President has control of American foreign policy, the military, and covert operations.

"There will be an October Surprise."

[Mimikatz]

And the surprise will be that since 63% of the ppopulation thinks we should not go to war against Iran, Bush will not get the bump he is looking for.

[slangist]

What worries me is the number of unfired weapons remaining in the Republicans' PR pouch. None is good for more than about a one month burst in the polls. But there are only six months to go. And they essentially control the timing on all of these. Note that none actually requires them to do anything real, hence their PR effectiveness. No blowback from intransigeant events.

1) Cheney resigns/dies and is replaced (think McCain, not Lieberman. Joe hasn't got anything they want but don't already have.)

2) Find and produce Bin Laden (from wherever they have him stashed.)

3) Ignite either US or Israeli weapons at Iran. (Ugly and stupid but will produce short-lived positive polls.)

4) Announce success in Iraq, regardless of Iraqi government's state, and proclaim US troop drawdown (not withdrawal.)

5) Ignite US weapons at North Korea. (See #3 caveat.)

6) Enroll Bush in Betty Ford Institute for 90 days, turn government over to new VP (see #1.)

[Dianne]

What has always bothered me about the vote rigging is that our own friends, neighbors, co-workers, relatives had to have had some knowledge - there are probably thousands of people across this land who at least gave tacit approval to what was going on - all in the name of the greater good. Maybe they didn't actually manipulate votes on machines but they shorted voting machines in Democratic districts in Ohio or intimidated black voters in Florida or sent misleading fliers in Georgia. I wonder if any of them will ever have an attack of conscience and admit it. They are all probably too far gone or too ashamed - we'll never hear from any of them, I bet.