LF: Gallup Predicts A Ruling Party Rout In The Midterms Based On Obama's Popularity Rating

Title: Gallup Predicts A Ruling Party Rout In The Midterms Based On Obama's Popularity Rating
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/
Published: Aug 9, 2010
Author: Tyler Durden
Post Date: 2010-08-10 20:06:33 by Capitalist Eric
Keywords: None
Views: 20547
Comments: 43

Gallup Predicts A Ruling Party Rout In The Midterms Based On Obama's Popularity Rating

Gallup presents [1]some troubling statistics for the democrats as we approach mid-term elections (a mere three months away). In a nutshell, the party of a president who has a sub-50% rating into midterms, has lost, on average, 36 seats since 1946. Alternatively, presidents with a popularity rating over 50%, lose just 14. As Gallup says [1]: "The clear implication is that the Democrats are vulnerable to losing a significant number of House seats this fall with Barack Obama's approval rating averaging 45% during the last two full weeks of Gallup Daily tracking. The Republicans would need to gain 40 House seats to retake majority control."

Of course, the administration (and its dwindling members) is well-aware of this fact, which is why the next three months will likely see a record amount of pandering, populism and outright manipulation of everything that can be manipulated: that includes mortgages rates, and of course, stocks. Which leads us to observe the calendar of FOMC meetings until November: there are two [2]- tomorrow and September 21. However, for a Fed loosening decision to have a material impact, the September meeting is likely cutting it too close to the election date, as the market will likely not have enough time to digest a favorable outcome, or in turn will be into its reactionary phase by the time November rolls around. Furthermore, the traditionally busy post-Labor day docket will likely mean events on the economic front already have to be in motion by then. Lastly, the fact that the Fed will have just a bare minimum quorum of just four directors through September 10 (at a minimum), means that any decision in the 11 days between then and the 21st will likely be far more problematic than one which has to be taken tomorrow. Which is why from a purely political calendar point of view, tomorrow's Fed meeting is likely seen by the administration as a make or break. The tenuous 40 seat lead which will likely disappear should the current economic trajectory not change, is certainly on the radar for both Obama, and the very independent Federal Reserve.

More observations from Gallup:

On a historical basis, the Democrats under Jimmy Carter suffered the slimmest seat loss of a party whose president was below 50% approval, losing 11 seats in the 1978 midterms. More recently, Bill Clinton in 1994 and George W. Bush in 2006 saw their parties lose enough seats in the House to turn party control over to the opposition party when they had less than majority approval.

The president's party nearly always loses seats in midterm elections, regardless of how well the president is rated by the public. Since World War II, only Clinton in 1998 and Bush in 2002 saw their parties gain seats in a midterm. Both men had approval ratings above 60% at the time of those elections. However, the parties of the other three presidents with ratings above 60% (Eisenhower in 1954, Kennedy in 1962, and Reagan in 1986) lost seats.

In general, though, the more popular a president is, the fewer seats his party loses, as presidents with approval ratings above 60% have averaged just a three-seat loss.

Bottom Line

With the Democratic Party in control of the White House and Congress, and key predictors of midterm seat change -- including presidential approval, congressional approval, and national satisfaction -- below average historically, the Democrats are clearly fighting an uphill battle this midterm election year.

And below is the empirical evidence:

Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gallup-predicts-ruling-party-rout-midterms-based-obamas-popularity-rating

Links:
[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/141812/Avg-Midterm-Seat-Loss-Presidents-Below-Approval.aspx
[2] http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm

Reader Peter A pointed out this New York Post article on Tyler Durden today. The Post has broken some hedge fund stories, like losses at particular well known hedge funds during rough trading periods, so it does have good connections in Hedgistan.

I would rather not get into this fray, but Tyler Durden has guest posted here, and his (or more accurately, their) stories have shed light on some questionable trading practices, and I applaud that effort. The Post story has now been picked up by other blogs, and at least in part confirmed by Felix Salmon, so I would be remiss in not posting on it.

A 30-year-old New Yorker who was barred from the securities industry last year may be behind an increasingly popular financial blog known as Zerohedge.com, which is catching flack for its obsession with anonymity.

Daniel Ivandjiiski, whose most recently listed address is on the Upper East Side, was barred last September by the financial industry's self regulatory authority, FINRA, for insider trading....

Ivandjiiski didn't return requests for comment, but he recently told industry publication Hedge Fund Alert that while he writes for Zerohedge, he's not a founder.

"He denied that he was a founder. He said he was just a contributor," Hedge Fund Alert Managing Editor Howard Kapiloff told The Post.

Ivandjiiski told Kapiloff that he's one of several writers who contributes to the site under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden," the charismatic, psychopathic alter-ego of the main character in the book and movie "Fight Club."...

A manifesto on the Web site suggests Zerohedge contributors are seeking to avoid the backlash their comments could unleash, saying anonymity protects "unpopular individuals from retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at the hand of an intolerant society."

A man who answered the phone at Zerohedge declined to give his name or to comment. He offered vague statements like, "Zerohedge is not one person," and, "For us, its not about the messenger, its about the message."

It is quite clear just from the variety of writing styles associated with the name "Tyler Durden" that more than one writer is associated with that name, It is also clear that the folks at Zero Hedge are unusually well plugged in, independent of their sources. The operation appears to have had a Bloomberg terminal from its early days (no minor expense), suggesting the writer(s) at a minimum co-located with a trading operation. I had though initially ZH might be a former hedgie who was trading for his own account and posting, but the volume of posts (and effort required to produce them) now suggests that some writer/researchers there are close to full time.

Felix Salmon indicates he has known of the Ivandjiiski connection since March. Chris Whalen said he had lunch with Durden .(one of the Durdens, anyway) and the tone of the throwaway comment suggested he knew him fairly well. Andrew Cuomo also seems to be taking some of the Zero Hedge stories seriously, particularly the ones about high frequency trading.

And the timing of the release of this news story could suggest (in a watered down rerun of what happened to Eliot Spitzer, the public exposure of information damaging to someone who was stepping on too many influential toes) that this story is appearing now precisely because Durden is getting to close to some even more damaging stories than he has provided thus far.

I am hardly one to throw stones at psuedonymous bloggers, but it only takes a modicum of digging to figure out who I am (and I have appeared on TV and done a bit of radio). I am told by a reader that he appeared on Bloomberg radio yesterday, and a reader who heard the broadcast says he plans to reveal his identity soon

Zero Hedge is a costly operation (apparent access to data services, number of staffers working what appears to be close to if not full time) and that does raise questions about its ambitions. It may be seeking to become a new media type of platform, but the combination of missionary fervor and possibly commercial aspirations is a mix that (per comments I have gotten from readers) leaves some perplexed.

The mysteriousness has served Zero Hedge well thus far, but the messianic zeal and the sometimes strident tone serves to undercut their typically good content. It clearly boosts traffic (ZH has become popular in a very short period of time), but does it in the end serve his cause? In the long run, it raises question about credibility, and and I worry not just his/theirs, but of financial blogs generally.