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: 20385
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

So when the Republocrats gain seats this fall the difference from now will be what, exactly?

The only time the GOP has actually behaved like they talk is when they ran Congress in opposition to Clinton.

During the last 6 years of the Clinton administration, federal spending dropped from 22.4% of GDP to 18.4%. It was magnificent achievement.

Unfortunately, under Bush when the GOP ran it all they ratcheted spending up again.

What GOP will we get this time??? Given the the GOP's current leadership I am not encouraged.

No, you've said this before and it's not true. Yes, there were defense cuts but they only amounted to half of the total budget savings. They also did this:

Reform Welfare(removed from entitlement status); Limit Medicaid eligibility; Cut funding for the space station; Cut federal employee retirement plans; Froze federal employees pay for one year; Cut agricultural subsidies; Cut housing subsidies; Cut rural electrification administration loan subsidies; Cut veterans benefits; Cut prison construction funding; and much, much more.

Clinton also signed a capital gains tax cut -- reducing the rate from 28% to 20%.

Clinton didn't inherit the largest economic downturn since the great depression. Clinton did exactly what Keyensian theory argues should be done during an upturn - cut spending, raise taxes.

The problem came when George W. Bush and crew massively cut tax taxes and increased spending during an up-turn.

Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution.

Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, "Clinton balances the budget." Others have praised George Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that Bush is one of "the real heroes" for his willingness to raise taxes -- and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George's last year in office.

And 1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system -- a plan that would have sent the government's finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.

The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton's budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending -- proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It's funny, but back in January the White House didn't seem too concerned about saving the surplus for "shoring up Social Security."

Now for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever?

So the budget is balanced, but now comes the harder part: cutting the budget. Bill Clinton has laid down a marker in the political debate with his "save Social Security first," gambit. That theme should be turned against him and his government expansionist agenda. Congress should respond: No new government programs until we have fixed Social Security. This means no IMF bailouts. No new day care subsidies. No extending Medicare coverage to 55-year-olds. (Honestly, if Clinton has his way, it won't be long till teenagers are eligible for Medicare.)

The budget surpluses over the next five years could easily exceed $500 billion. Leaving all of that extra money lying around within the grasp of vote-buying politicians is an invitation to financial mischief. If Congress and the president use the surpluses to fund a new spending spree, we may find that surpluses are more a curse than a blessing.

Bill Clinton never submitted a single balanced-budget request to Congress during his entire eight years in office. Look it up if you don’t believe this fact.

The 2000 Budget, which I am submitting to you with this message, promises the third balanced budget in my Administration. With this budget, our fiscal house is in order, our spirit strong, and our resources prepare us to meet the challenges of the next century.