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: 20418
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

Great news! We can have Republican Keynesians rule us instead of Democratic ones!!!!

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.

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

"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath

"Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws.”
-- Baron M.A. Rothschild --

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.

Statists of the dem variety will suddenly start whining about things the fedgov is doing.

______________________________________________________________________________
Zero diddled while America burned

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%.

the last jobs report showed government jobs declining and private sector jobs increasing. Where's the celebration by our resident conservatives?

Can't speak for others, but this resident conservative isn't impressed with blips on the radar.

______________________________________________________________________________
Zero diddled while America burned

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.

I've finally figured out your problem - your standard for POTUS' is George W. Bush!

Seriously - how long is your hero Zero going to be able to blame Bush for the fact that Zero is in waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over his head? Is there an expiration date for "blame Bush?"

And does Bush's "crew" include Nancy and Harry - who controlled the House and Senate since 2006?

______________________________________________________________________________
Zero diddled while America burned

Tell me how Boy Blunder was any diffrent from Poppy, who was bored in the job, Red Ink, who was absolutely as clueless and Nixon, who spent like it was his last day on earth...?

______________________________________________________________________________
Zero diddled while America burned

Spending was cut at the beginning of 1993, when the country was still in a slump.

Clinton also signed a capital gains tax CUT in 1997, long after the economy was growing. He reduced the rate from 28% to 20%.

Keyensian economics was discredited in the 1970s when we had massive inflation and recession at the same time (which the Keynesian Phillips Curve says could never happen).

______________________________________________________________________________
Zero diddled while America burned

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.

Oh yeah - I forgot. You're a statist. You (and Zero, and Harry, and Nancy) are soooooooooo much smarter than everyone else.

______________________________________________________________________________
Zero diddled while America burned

The point is look at the governments we get and now tell me about the people in 49 states again...

I understand the point the article is making, but Clinton gets credit too for listening to the voters after the 1994 election. Clinton did sign a capital gains tax cut and a bill that reformed welfare -- removing it from entitlement status. He could have vetoed both of these.

I suspect that if the GOP takes control of Congress this election, Obama will be much less willing to change his program than Clinton was, because Obama is much more ideological.

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.

...after vetoing it 3 times, and then only signed it as a political gesture before the 96 election.

The budget was balanced while Clinton was president. Clinton has to sign each budget. So, he gets some credit for this. No, it wouldn't have happened without Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and Bill Archer.

______________________________________________________________________________
Zero diddled while America burned

He signed a different bill PAddy old boy and what he ended up with is was very close to what he campaigned on in 1992...

i HATED CLinton when he ran for office. I flipped him the bird about 6 inches from his face when he campaigned in NY just before he allowed that feeble minded guy to be put to death.

By 1995, I was considering voting for him in 1996. I didn't...but I sure came close...

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.

Chuckles...you are so fucking truth challenged Paddy Old Boy. He held out for an increase in child health care funding until the GOP capitulated.

He signed the GOP bill while whining about food stamp cuts and benefits to illegal aliens.

Remarks on Signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) What we are trying to do today is to overcome the flaws of the welfare system for the people who are trapped on it. We all know that the typical family on welfare today is very different from the one that welfare was designed to deal with 60 years ago. We all know that there are a lot of good people on welfare who just get off of it in the ordinary course of business but that a significant number of people are trapped on welfare for a very long time, exiling them from the entire community of work that gives structure to our lives.

Nearly 30 years ago, Robert Kennedy said, “Work is the meaning of what this country is all about. We need it as individuals, we need to sense it in our fellow citizens, and we need it as a society and as a people.” He was right then, and it’s right now. From now on, our Nation’s answer to this great social challenge will no longer be a never-ending cycle of welfare; it will be the dignity, the power, and the ethic of work. Today we are taking an historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be: a second chance, not a way of life.

The bill I’m about to sign, as I have said many times, is far from perfect, but it has come a very long way. Congress sent me two previous bills that I strongly believe failed to protect our children and did too little to move people from welfare to work. I vetoed both of them. This bill had broad bipartisan support and is much, much better on both counts.

The new bill restores America’s basic bargain of providing opportunity and demanding, in return, responsibility. It provides &dollar;14 billion for child care, &dollar;4 billion more than the present law does. It is good because without the assurance of child care it’s all but impossible for a mother with young children to go to work. It requires States to maintain their own spending on welfare reform and gives them powerful performance incentives to place more people on welfare in jobs. It gives States the capacity to create jobs by taking money now used for welfare checks and giving it to employers as subsidies as incentives to hire people. This bill will help people to go to work so they can stop drawing a welfare check and start drawing a paycheck.

It’s also better for children. It preserves the national safety net of food stamps and school lunches. It drops the deep cuts and the devastating changes in child protection, adoption, and help for disabled children. It preserves the national guarantee of health care for poor children, the disabled, the elderly, and people on welfare—the most important preservation of all.

It includes the tough child support enforcement measures that, as far as I know, every Member of Congress and everybody in the administration and every thinking person in the country has supported for more than 2 years now. It’s the most sweeping crackdown on deadbeat parents in history. We have succeeded in increasing child support collection 40 percent, but over a third of the cases where there’s delinquencies involve people who cross State lines. For a lot of women and children, the only reason they’re on welfare today—the only reason—is that the father up and walked away when he could have made a contribution to the welfare of the children. That is wrong. If every parent paid the child support that he or she owes legally today, we could move 800,000 women and children off welfare immediately.

With this bill we say, if you don’t pay the child support you owe we’ll garnish your wages, take away your driver’s license, track you across State lines, if necessary, make you work off what you pay—what you owe. It is a good thing, and it will help dramatically to reduce welfare, increase independence, and reinforce parental responsibility.

As the Vice President said, we strongly disagree with a couple of provisions of this bill. We believe that the nutritional cuts are too deep, especially as they affect low-income working people and children. We should not be punishing people who are working for a living already; we should do everything we can to lift them up and keep them at work and help them to support their children. We also believe that the congressional leadership insisted on cuts in programs for legal immigrants that are far too deep.

These cuts, however, have nothing to do with the fundamental purpose of welfare reform. I signed this bill because this is an historic chance, where Republicans and Democrats got together and said, we’re going to take this historic chance to try to recreate the Nation’s social bargain with the poor. We’re going to try to change the parameters of the debate. We’re going to make it all new again and see if we can’t create a system of incentives which reinforce work and family and independence. We can change what is wrong. We should not have passed this historic opportunity to do what is right.

And so I want to ask all of you, without regard to party, to think through the implications of these other non-welfare issues on the American people, and let’s work together in good spirits and good faith to remedy what is wrong. We can balance the budget without these cuts. But let’s not obscure the fundamental purpose of the welfare provisions of this legislation, which are good and solid and which can give us at least the chance to end the terrible, almost physical isolation of huge numbers of poor people and their children from the rest of mainstream America. We have to do that.

Let me also say that there’s something really good about this legislation: When I sign it, we all have to start again, and this becomes everybody’s responsibility. After I sign my name to this bill, welfare will no longer be a political issue. The two parties cannot attack each other over it. Politicians cannot attack poor people over it. There are no encrusted habits, systems, and failures that can be laid at the foot of someone else. We have to begin again. This is not the end of welfare reform; this is the beginning. And we have to all assume responsibility. Now that we are saying with this bill we expect work, we have to make sure the people have a chance to go to work. If we really value work, everybody in this society—businesses, nonprofits, religious institutions, individuals, those in government—all have a responsibility to make sure the jobs are there.…

Today we are ending welfare as we know it. But I hope this day will be remembered not for what it ended but for what it began: a new day that offers hope, honors responsibility, rewards work, and changes the terms of the debate so that no one in America ever feels again the need to criticize people who are poor on welfare but instead feels the responsibility to reach out to men and women and children who are isolated, who need opportunity, and who are willing to assume responsibility, and give them the opportunity and the terms of responsibility.

A protest by someone permanentley on his knees giving head to Boy Blunder is worth what?

He negotiated and signed it. And, IIRC, he was able to restore alot of those cuts to the nutrtional programs anyway.