Will Obama help or hurt fellow Dems in midterms?
In a December 2009 photo, Pres. Obama meets with Democratic Senators in Washington, DC. (PHOTO CREDIT: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A year ago, it would have seemed nearly impossible: The popular new Democratic president boosting support for Republicans at the polls.
But, fast forward a year and with a significant drop in Pres. Obama's approval ratings - that's now part of the GOP strategy for the midterm elections. Some Republicans are hoping to tie their Democratic opponents to unpopular policies of the President... including things like spending, bailouts and health care reform.
It's happening in conservative states - like Louisiana and Tennessee... where Republicans are hoping Mr. Obama will come campaign with the Democrats... as well as other states that the president won in 2008 - like Wisconsin. In some cases - they plan to tie Democrats to the Pelosi-Obama agenda - a reference to the hideously unpopular speaker of the house.
Nonetheless - Republicans recognize that they will have to walk a fine line so the strategy doesn't backfire. They can't go after the president personally, because most Americans still like Mr. Obama even if they disagree with his policies.
Following stunning losses in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey - Democrats are prepping for a rough midterm election. And things could get worse. Imagine the symbolism of losing the president's home state, Illinois. There is some concern that Republicans might take over the president's old senate seat along with the Illinois governorship.
Illinois has been Democratic for years - but ongoing ethics scandals and the near insolvency of the state government might just change that.
Here’s my question to you: Will Pres. Obama help or hurt fellow Democrats in the midterm elections?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How should Democrats proceed on health care?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Republicans' victory in Massachusetts could very well be the final nail in the coffin for the Democrats' health care reform.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/24/flushot.jpg caption=""]
Exit poll data from one Republican firm shows the health care bill was the single most important issue to Massachusetts voters. This poll found 52 percent of those surveyed are opposed to health care reform; and 42 percent say they cast their ballot to help stop the overhaul.
Without the 60 vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the Democrats are left with a few options - none of them all that good... and most involving complicated legislative procedures.
The house could pass the bill that cleared the Senate as is - but several House Democrats are suggesting they won't go for that.
The House could also pass the current Senate bill and then try to fix it with a procedure that only needs 51 votes to pass the Senate.
Or the Democrats could scrap what they have and just try to pass a bare-bones bill that includes some of the most popular initiatives.
Several senators - including democrat Jim Webb - are calling for health care reform to be suspended until Scott Brown is sworn in.
And it appears President Obama may be getting the message... he says that the Senate shouldn't jam health care through before Brown is seated: "People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process."
Here's my question to you: How should the Democrats proceed on health care now that they no longer have the votes to pass it in the Senate?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Will health care reform help or hurt Democrats in midterm elections?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Democrats are plowing ahead with health care reform - trying to iron out the differences between the Senate and House bills before the president's state of the union address in a few weeks.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/01/07/art.obama.1.6.jpg caption=""]
And one of the biggest differences is how to pay for this massive overhaul. President Obama is now telling House Democrats to drop their opposition to taxing so-called Cadillac insurance plans.
The House had wanted to increase income taxes on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples making over 1 million dollars; while the Senate backs taxing insurance companies on the higher end plans. Do you suppose the insurance companies will simply raise their rates to compensate?
And there are other disagreements too - lots of them. Like the fact that House Democrats will likely have to drop the public option - many liberals think it's not even worth passing health care reform without a government plan.
There are questions about funding for abortion - still don't know how that will be addressed - and whether illegal aliens should be allowed to buy insurance coverage with their own money.
Meanwhile Democrats are short-circuiting the legislative process by not having a formal conference committee to meld the two bills together. Instead the entire process is taking place behind closed doors, out of sight of the American public - something President Obama promised would never happen. Remember?
Here’s my question to you: Will health care reform help or hurt the Democrats in the midterm elections?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why so many Democrats headed for the exits?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Not a good sign for the Democrats when a growing list of lawmakers - including veteran Senators Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan - are choosing not to run for re-election this Fall.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/01/06/dodd.dorgan.jpg caption=" (L to R) Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-ND"]
Dorgan of North Dakota says he wants out of politics in order to do other things. Connecticut's Chris Dodd acknowledges his difficult political situation, along with personal reasons, in not running for a sixth term. Dodd has been under fire for his ties to the financial industry and his dealings with a VIP mortgage loan program.
Things are looking pretty rough for the Democrats come November. When you consider the sagging poll numbers of President Obama and the Democratic Party, some suggest the Republicans could have their best chance in years of making big gains.
In the senate, the Democrats stand to lose their filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes. And it's estimated they could lose 20 to 30 seats in the House. If those things happen, President Obama could be rendered almost powerless when it comes to getting his legislation passed.
These retirements come at a time when Democratic incumbents - including big names like Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Arlen Specter - are facing tough re-election fights of their own.
To be fair - it's not just Democrats who are leaving town. In the Senate, there are five Democrats and six Republicans not running for re-election. In the House, there are five Democrats retiring and six running for other offices... while there are two Republicans retiring and 12 running for other offices.
Here’s my question to you: Why are so many Democrats heading for the exits?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Reminding voters about Bush era best strategy for Democrats?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When Democrats swept into power in Congress and the White House last year - a big part of their message was running against the record of the Bush administration.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/18/art.g.w.bush.gi.jpg caption=""]
And some are hoping that strategy works for them again in the 2010 midterm elections.
The web site Talking Points Memo reports Democrats plan to tell voters that Republicans only want to turn back the clock to the Bush era. They say the Republican Party in Washington today is no different than the one that ran Congress before.
Also Democrats insist the party won't take the same kind of beating at the hands of Republicans that it did back in 1994. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says they "fully intend to be in the majority" after November - and other party leaders say they're more prepared this time.
They better hope they are, considering poll numbers that show support for the Democratic Party slumping. A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll shows only 35-percent of voters have positive feelings for the Democratic party - that's down 14-points since February.
Also - Democrats are losing support from independents. And voters planning to back Republicans are much more interested in the 2010 races than those planning to vote Democrat.
Here’s my question to you: Is reminding voters about the Bush era the best strategy for Democrats in the midterm elections?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Republicans more likely to be 'highly religious' than Democrats
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
More proof that religion and politics are deeply connected in the U.S. - especially if you're a Republican.
A new Gallup poll shows the religious intensity of Americans is a strong predictor of whether they're Democrat or Republican. In a survey of nearly 30,000 people:
49 percent of Americans who call themselves Republicans say they're "highly religious"... meaning they go to church at least once a week and say religion is important in their daily lives. That's compared to 37 percent of Democrats who feel that way.
At the other extreme - only 26 percent of Republicans say they're "not religious" - meaning they never attend church and say religion isn't important... That's compared to 56 percent of Democrats.
When it comes to race - the poll shows that African-Americans are strongly Democratic - regardless of how religious they are. Also, Latinos skew more toward the Democratic party.
However, the religious connection is strongest among whites. Consider this: Whites who are highly religious are more than twice as likely to identify as Republicans rather than Democrats... and - exactly the opposite pattern emerges among whites who are not religious - by a 2-to-1 margin they are likely Democrats.
In all - about half of the white population in this country is both highly religious and leans toward the Republican Party.
With numbers like these - it's no wonder we hear Republican politicians invoking God and morality more often than the Democrats.
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean that Republicans are more likely to be "highly religious" than Democrats?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How can Democrats avoid getting noses bloodied in midterms?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Democrats could be in for some serious bloodshed come the midterm elections - if yesterday's races in New Jersey and Virginia are any indication. Voters in both those states elected Republicans governor. The message was pretty clear: "It's the economy, stupid."
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/04/art.va.gov.jpg caption="Republican Governor-elect Bob McDonnell of Virginia greeted the crowd at his victory party last night in Richmond. McDonnell beat out Democratic challenger Creigh Deeds."]
Exit polls showed more than 80 percent of voters in both states said they were worried about the direction of the economy in the next year; more than half said they were very worried.
Another trouble spot for Democrats - those independents who were a key to President Obama's White House victory last year broke big for the GOP yesterday. And, exit polls suggest Democrats had a hard time turning out their base - including the first-time minority voters and young people who voted for Obama last year.
Nevertheless, most voters in both Virginia and New Jersey said President Obama was not a factor in their vote. But if the administration can't do more to lessen the impact of this recession in the next year - yesterday's elections could be a sign of serious trouble in the midterms, when most governors, all of the House and a third of the Senate will be on the ballots.
Of course the White House is dismissing the New Jersey and Virginia losses as "two very local elections" that say nothing about the president's standing with the American people right now. They have to say that. President Obama campaigned for both these candidates.
Here’s my question to you: What can the Democrats do to keep from getting their noses bloodied in next year's midterm elections?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Special White House access for big Democratic contributors?
President Obama is pictured golfing on Martha's Vineyard back in August. (PHOTO CREDIT: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama promised to be different - but he's not.
The Washington Times reports that the president has been giving top Democratic contributors special access to the White House. Internal Democratic National Committee documents show this includes everything from private briefings with top administration officials - to invitations to big speeches and town hall meetings - to golfing with the president in Martha's Vineyard - to birthday visits to the Oval Office... plus bowling and movies at the White House.
Remember the hell President Clinton caught when we found out he was letting contributors sleep in the Lincoln bedroom?
Handing out goodies to big money contributors just ahead of the midterm elections flies in the face of all of that high-minded rhetoric about reform, lobbyists, transparency etc. that we heard during the campaign. You can buy access to this president for $30,400 as an individual or for bundling $300,000.
The White House insists President Obama has set the "toughest ethics standards in history" and they say many of these guests weren't only fundraisers, but personal friends of the president. Whatever they are - it smacks of selling access to the highest office in the land in exchange for political donations, and it stinks.
Democratic Party officials say there's "absolutely no correlation" between fundraising and attending White House events, and insist Mr. Obama's efforts to reward major donors are on a far smaller scale than other recent presidents.
Here’s my question to you: Should big Democratic contributors be given special access to the White House?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why do House Democrats still support Charlie Rangel?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Yesterday it was Republican Senator John Ensign... today, we have a worm from the other side of the aisle: Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel. Republicans tried unsuccessfully once again to remove Rangel from the chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. They introduced a motion that would have forced him to step down during the ongoing ethics investigation into his finances and other activities.
U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
But House Democrats wouldn't hear of it. They effectively killed the resolution - by voting to shut down the debate and send it to the House Ethics Committee - where the matter has already sat for a year. The phrase, "House Ethics Committee" is an oxymoron.
Rangel has been under investigation for lots of reasons: hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets that he allegedly didn't claim on financial disclosure forms. He has admitted not paying taxes on $75,000 in income from a rental property he owns in the Dominican Republic. And - he's accused of breaking New York City laws by keeping several rent-controlled apartments - including one he used for a campaign office. There's more… I just don't have time to list it all.
But despite it all... this weasel remains the head of the powerful House committee that writes our tax law. And judging by the actions of his fellow Democrats yesterday, it's all just fine with them. What it is is disgusting.
Charlie Rangel says he's the victim of a smear campaign by some in the media. He whines that other chairmen usually get to keep their leadership posts when under ethics investigations.
Here’s my question to you: Why do House Democrats continue to support Ways and Means Committee chairman Charlie Rangel?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How bad will 2010 midterm elections be for Democrats?
The Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (PHOTO CREDIT: KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Democrats may be in for some trouble come next year's midterm elections.
A new Gallup poll shows 46 percent of registered voters say they would vote for the Democrat in their congressional district if the election were held today; but 44 percent say they'd support the Republican - a virtual tie.
The Democrats held a much larger lead over Republicans for most of 2006 through 2008.
What's interesting here is that the stronger showing by the Republicans comes from the support of independents - who now favor Republicans over Democrats by 45 to 36 percent. In July, it was even.
Another potential sign of trouble for Democrats is Congress' job approval rating - now a dismal 21 percent. Democrats are in charge in both houses.
Historically in midterm elections - the party that holds the White House loses seats in Congress. The average loss is 16 House seats, but some election experts think the Democrats could lose a lot more in 2010.
One analyst says the Democrats have 25 to 30 seats that are "truly vulnerable," plus another 40 where there's a chance of a "competitive race." He says Republicans only have 10 to 15 vulnerable seats.
Even though President Obama's approval ratings have moved back up a little... and Democrats are hoping for results on health care and the economy, those independents - along with seniors - are moving toward the Republican column. And seniors are the group more likely to turn out and vote in midterm elections.
Here’s my question to you: How bad will the 2010 midterm elections be for the Democrats?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments