How will record U.S. poverty levels impact midterm elections?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's not like the Democrats don't have enough problems headed into the midterm elections.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/09/15/art.poverty.jpg caption="A couple applies for food stamps after being evicted from their home following job loss. They then moved into a motel with their three children."]
Now comes word that the number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Obama's watch.
It's not necessarily President Obama or the Democrats' fault, and is likely the product of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. But some political damage will likely accrue to the Democrats anyway.
Census figures for 2009 are out soon, and it's expected the poverty rate will have increased from 13.2 percent to 15 percent of our population. That translates to 45 million people - or one in every seven - being poor.
It would be the highest increase in poverty since the government began keeping records in 1959.
Among working people aged 18 to 64, poverty is expected to have increased from 11.7 percent to 12.4 percent.
That would be the highest since 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson launched the war on poverty, which greatly expanded the federal government's role in social welfare programs from education to health care.
Here’s my question to you: How will record levels of poverty in the U.S. impact the midterm elections?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 6pm 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.
Is the Tea Party for real?
Tea Party backed Christine O'Donnell. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Tea Party movement might just be the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats - raising questions about internal divisions among Republicans.
Two Tea Party favorites defeated more mainstream Republicans in yesterday's primaries. In Delaware, Christine O'Donnell easily won over nine-time U.S. Rep. Mike Castle in the Senate primary.
Castle, who held elected office in Delaware for more than 40 years, had the entire national GOP establishment behind him while O'Donnell was endorsed by Sarah Palin.
Many believe O'Donnell's win means the Democrats now have an unexpected chance to keep the Delaware Senate seat once held by Vice President Joe Biden. One Republican strategist described the Delaware primary results as "straight out of Harry Reid's dream journal."
Meanwhile, another Tea Party victory came in New York, where Carl Paladino beat Rick Lazio in the primary for governor. Paladino will run against the heavily favored Democrat, Andrew Cuomo.
Although some question the ability of Tea Party candidates to win in the general election, others insist it is one of the most powerful movements in recent American history.
A piece in the Washington Examiner headlined "One nation under revolt" says that while many have ignored or belittled the Tea Party, it has only grown stronger - showing an unprecedented level of activism and enthusiasm.
And here's part of the reason for the Tea Party's success: a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll shows only one in four Americans say they trust the government to do what is right always or most of the time.
Here’s my question to you: Is the Tea Party for real?
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.
Should Rangel, Waters ethics trials be postponed until after elections?
FILE PHOTO: Maxine Waters [LEFT] (D-CA) speaks as Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), and Rep. Charles Rangel [RIGHT] (D-NY) listen during a news conference on Capitol Hill (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As long as we keep re-electing the same vermin, this is the kind of garbage we get that passes for government.
The Hill newspaper reports that watchdog groups expect the ethics trials for Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel and Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters to be delayed until - you guessed it - after the November election.
One group suggests that holding ethics hearings right before the midterms "overly politicizes" the ethics process.
But what about the voters? Don't they have a right to know whether or not their lawmakers are guilty of ethics charges before voting for or against them?
The way it works is the ethics committee must provide the member charged with all the evidence it plans to present in a trial - at least 15 days before the trial starts. So even if the committee gave Rangel and Waters their evidence this week, the trials couldn't start until the beginning of October... right around when Congress will likely leave town - again - to go home and campaign.
Meanwhile, the ethics panel investigated Rangel for almost two years before accusing him of several violations... including not paying taxes on a Dominican Republican villa and improperly using his office to raise millions of dollars for an education center named after him.
Two years!
Waters is accused of using her position to help a bank - where her husband owns stock - win millions of dollars in federal bailout funds.
Both lawmakers insist they are innocent and will fight the charges in a public trial. Waters has already won her primary in California and doesn't face a serious challenge in the general election. Rangel still needs to win tomorrow's primary here in New York.
Here’s my question to you: Should the ethics trials of Reps. Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters be postponed until after the November elections?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why have voters fallen out of love with the Democrats?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When it comes to the midterm elections, the question now seems to be: "Just how bloody will things get for the Democrats?"
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/09/02/art.dnc.jpg caption="A file photo from the 2008 Democratic National Convention."]
Each day brings more bad news. And here's the latest: a new USA Today/Gallup Poll shows Americans think Republicans in Congress will do a better job than Democrats in handling seven out of nine key issues.
They include: terrorism, immigration, federal spending, the economy, Afghanistan, jobs and corruption in government. The two parties are essentially tied on health care; and the only issue where Democrats score higher is the environment. Not exactly what's going to bring people to the polls this November.
Republicans need to win 39 seats in order to win control of the House - and some experts are predicting they could win as many as 51. Some even think Democratic control of the Senate is at risk - but that's more of a long shot.
And it's not just about Congress. Democrats are at risk of losing the governorships of some states that usually lean left, like Michigan and Pennsylvania, and maybe even President Obama's home state of Illinois.
So with Democrats poised to get a beating in 60 days, and with everybody saying: "It's the economy, Stupid" - the president has chosen this time to give another go at peace in the Middle East.
A noble cause, for sure. But for decades, American presidents have tried and failed. A column in the Daily Beast called "The Peace Talks Charade" suggests the situation is in the same place it was three years ago under President Bush. And neither the Israelis nor Palestinians have the confidence in Mr. Obama's ability to broker a deal.
Here’s my question to you: Why have voters fallen out of love with the Democrats?
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.
How concerned should Dems be about losing the House?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When it comes to November's midterm elections, the writing on the wall is not looking good for Democrats.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/02/art.donkey.jpg caption=""]
A new Gallup poll shows Republicans with an unprecedented 10-point lead over Democrats - 51 percent to 41 percent - on the generic ballot question. That's the Republicans' largest lead in the 68 years Gallup has taken the generic ballot poll.
Then there's this: Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats - 50 percent to 25 percent - to say they're "very" enthusiastic about voting.
Gallup suggests all this could mean a major "wave" election - where Republicans win enough seats to take back control of the House. To do that, they would need to win 39 seats.
Some think it could be even worse for the Democrats. A political science professor at the State University of New York - who has a good record of predicting presidential elections - says the Democrats could lose about 51 seats in November.
Even a growing number of Democrats now say in private they think the House is already lost. As one Democratic strategist tells Politico - the Democrats are out there talking about Iraq and President Bush, while Americans are worried about the economy and their jobs.
Some Democrats are also frustrated that the White House has been focusing on the wars and issues like the mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero... instead of the economy.
But other Democrats - including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - insist they'll hold onto their majority. Gallup points out that Democrats did lead in the generic ballot earlier this summer; and there's always the chance that could change again before Election Day.
Here’s my question to you: How concerned should the Democrats be about losing the House in November?
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.
Voters want deficits addressed, so why does Washington ignore them?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Voters are fed up with our lawmakers' inability to take action when it comes to reducing the $1.5 trillion federal deficit. And as The Wall Street Journal reports, it's the voters who appear more willing to take drastic steps to do something about the nation's mounting red ink.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/06/09/art.voting.jpg caption=""]
The newspaper talked to voters in Virginia, a swing state, who say they're willing to make the tough cuts - from a national sales tax, to budget cuts, to higher medicare co-pays and deductibles.
The voters get it even if the federal government doesn't. And Washington really doesn't get it. Our leaders worry about being attacked in an election year if they suggest spending cuts or tax increases.
The American people just want their leaders to lead on this issue. Is that too much to ask? That's why they were elected.
One independent voter in Richmond, Virginia told the Journal, "I wish the politicians would be hard-[blanks] and be like, 'You know what? It's going to be horrible for the next few years, but you've got to shut up'."
Wouldn't that be refreshing? Meanwhile we await the results of Pres. Obama's bipartisan deficit reduction commission - which are conveniently scheduled for release after the November election. And when the recommendations finally do come; most, if not all, of them will have to be approved by Congress. Which will likely render the entire exercise meaningless.
Some are suggesting a popular uprising is the only way to get our country back on track. A piece on InfoWars.com suggests "without a revolution, Americans are history."
Here’s my question to you: If voters want the deficits addressed, why does Washington continue to ignore them?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How early is too early for presidential campaign to begin?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Right now, it's all about the 2010 midterm elections... or is it? As soon as the polls close on November 2 and the winners are announced, the focus will shift to the presidential race of 2012.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/03/art.hat.jpg caption=""]
Even though that may seem far away... for some, the presidential campaign has already begun.
Potential Republican hopefuls are already logging multiple visits to key early states - like Iowa and New Hampshire.
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.... he's set to make his fifth visit to Iowa next week... he's also made three trips to New Hampshire.
Pawlenty insists he won't decide whether or not to run until early next year. Maybe… but in the meantime he's working it.... big-time. Meeting local politicians, shaking hands with voters, making speeches about how to fix the country, talking about his blue-collar background, raising money for his political action committee... you get the idea.
And Pawlenty is not the only one. Far from it.
According to Radio Iowa, since the 2008 presidential race ended, the following politicians have been to Iowa multiple times: former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Also, former Governors Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and George Pataki have each been once.
It could very well be one of this crop who hopes to unseat Pres. Obama.
For the rest of us, this means before you know it… we'll be bombarded daily with polls and television ads and fund-raising pleas and debates... and all the wonderful things that go along with a presidential campaign. Wolf is positively giddy in anticipation.
Here’s my question to you: How early is too early for another presidential campaign to begin?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Will ethics issues haunt the Democrats come Nov.?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Remember when Nancy Pelosi promised to "drain the swamp" after the Democrats took control of the House a few years back? Well turns out some of her high-profile Democratic colleagues may be swimming in that very swamp.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/02/art.donkey.jpg caption=""]
Two senior Democrats in the House of Representatives now face possible ethics trials - which is just about the last thing Democrats need headed into what's already shaping up to be a brutal midterm election.
Long-time New York Congressman Charlie Rangel has been formally charged with 13 counts of violating House ethics rules... including not paying taxes on rental income from the Dominican Republic.
Several House Democrats have already called on Rangel, a 20-term veteran, to resign.... and President Obama says he hopes Rangel can "end his career with dignity."
Then there's California Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Today, the ethics panel charged her with breaking House rules by using her position to get federal bailout money for a bank with ties to her husband.
While Rangel admits to making mistakes... Waters insists she's done nothing wrong.
For their part, top Democrats insist these potential trials show that the ethics process is working. We'll see about that.
Really? They're both still there.
Meanwhile, this could create a situation similar to elections past where ethics scandals dominated the news... and control of the House passed from one party to the other.
In 2006, the Republicans ran into a series of scandals... including then-Senate Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Congressman Duke Cunningham.
They lost the House to the Democrats.
In 1994 - it was the Democrats that lost the House... amid allegations that top Democrats misused funds from the House Post Office.
Here’s my question to you: Will ethics issues haunt the Democrats come November?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Does 'angry' best describe how you feel about midterm elections?
(PHOTO CREDIT: THINKSTOCK)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The incumbents are already running for the hills... fearing the wrath of the American voters.
Poll after poll shows how fed up the public is with Washington, with incumbents, with the direction the country is headed and on and on.
So The Washington Post decided to find out if "angry" is the best way to describe how voters feel headed into the midterm elections.
The answer is mixed.
On the one hand, pollsters say describing voters as "angry" is too narrow... because there's actually a whole range of other emotions mixed with the anger. Things like dissatisfaction, anxiety, frustration, pessimism, doubt, etc.
One Republican pollster says most voters are "anxious"... he believes the key voting bloc in November will be the 25% of voters who backed President Obama in 2008, say they will vote this fall - but don't plan to vote for a Democrat.
Other polling experts say describing voters as angry is "too broad."
Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting in the upcoming elections... probably because lots of them want to kick Democrats out of office.
We've also seen an unusual level of energy and excitement among the Tea Party branch of the GOP.
The midterm elections historically have low voter turnout, so any kind of passion is helpful... and this time around, it seems like the Republican party is getting ready to benefit from that passion.
Here’s my question to you: Is "angry" the best word to describe how you feel about the midterm elections?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Will lack of immigration reform hurt Democrats in midterms?
FILE PHOTO: A candlelight vigil calling for federal immigration reform in response to the Arizona law giving police new stop and search powers. (PHOTO CREDIT: MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The debate over immigration reform has turned into a childish game of "he said - he said."
Republican Senator Jon Kyl says Pres. Obama told him in a one-on-one meeting, "if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform."
Kyl suggests border security is being held hostage by the Democrats for political reasons.
The White House denies it, saying: "The president didn't say that and Senator Kyl knows it."
But Senator Kyl is not backing down from his version of events.
Actually, it almost doesn't matter who you believe in this. The truth is that immigration reform is looking less and less likely to happen yet again - what a surprise. But this time inaction could cost Democrats dearly.
Take Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is facing an uphill battle for re-election in Nevada. Reid is now pandering to Latinos there with Spanish TV ads.
He needs their vote - and is still hoping they'll support him even though he promised immigration reform and now likely won't deliver.
Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey tells Politico: "I don't necessarily think we're going to have a comprehensive bill this summer."
One key Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham, already backed away from bipartisan efforts for immigration reform.
Meanwhile as Arizona moves forward with its own immigration law, the Obama justice department is thinking of suing the state.
It's absolutely absurd. The federal government refuses to do anything about the illegal immigration crisis in this country. After all if they sealed the border, if they enforced their own laws against illegal immigration, Arizona wouldn't need such a law in the first place. Our government is badly broken.
Here’s my question to you: How badly will a lack of immigration reform hurt the Democrats in the midterm elections?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments