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?
Would you vote for a military commander for president in 2012?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As the U.S. continues to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - it seems like a sharp military mind in the Oval Office may come in handy. The New York Times reports on growing speculation that General David Petraeus - who oversees those two wars - might run for president in 2012. Petraeus' people deny it - but some say the White House is still suspicious.
Aides to Petraeus say he hasn't voted for more than five years - to preserve a sense of military impartiality. And although he's been described as a Republican - one top military official close to the general says he couldn't confirm his political party.
In any case - the Times points out how Petraeus, who was a favorite of George Bush, has taken on a more muted voice in the debate over Afghanistan. But he continues to have a seat at the table, as the Obama administration wrestles with sending as many as 40,000 additional troops to the fight .
There was a time when military service was a political asset - Eisenhower came to the White House via the military and was one of America's most popular presidents... JFK, Nixon, Carter - among others - also served.
But in recent elections, the attitude towards men in uniform has changed... voters rejected John McCain, John Kerry and Bob Dole - all veterans.
Here’s my question to you: Would you vote for a military commander for president in 2012?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Will voters blame Democrats for economic problems in 2010 election?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
At some point it will become President Obama and the Democrats' recession, not George W. Bush's. If the economy doesn't start to show signs of picking up, Democrats could feel the voters' anger in next year's mid-term elections.
President Obama is traveling a path not unlike the one President Ronald Reagan once traveled and, as my colleague Christine Romans points out, the Democrats could learn something from President Reagan's experience. Both Presidents were wildly popular early on, but unemployment was rising.
In the 1982 elections Reagan's Republican Party lost 26 seats and experts say the scale was tipped when unemployment hit 10-percent. President Obama currently faces a 9.5-percent unemployment rate and now says 10-percent is likely before the year is over. Renowned investor Warren Buffet said this morning on Good Morning America that unemployment could hit 11-percent.
It seems everyone knows someone who has lost their job. While the Obama Administration is busy pointing the finger at Bush, those unemployed Americans who can't find a job will likely be tempted to take it out on whoever is in power when they vote next fall. What remains to be seen is if voters are ready to start returning Republicans to power so soon after the Bush Administration.
Here’s my question to you: Will the voters blame the Democrats for our economic problems in next year's election?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
GOP targeting Michelle Obama?
Click the Play Button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Tennessee Republican Party has set its sights on Michelle Obama – the wife of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
A new web video highlights her controversial comment earlier this year, saying she was proud of America "for the first time in my adult life." Obama later clarified the remark saying she meant she was proud of how Americans were engaging in the political process, and that she was always proud of her country.
Nonetheless, the GOP video replays her remark six times and mixes in commentary by people who live in Tennessee on why they're proud of America. The party says it's always been proud of this country, and it requested that state radio stations play patriotic music in honor of Michelle Obama's visit there yesterday.
The Obama campaign calls the attack "shameful”. It says that the Republican Party's "pathetic" attempts to use similar smear tactics have already failed in elections in Mississippi and Louisiana, and will fail again in November. The campaign calls on the Tennessee Republican Party to address Senator Obama directly next time, instead of going after his family.
Meanwhile, it's not the first time the GOP in Tennessee has made waves. Earlier this year, in a truly low-rent stunt, it used Barack Obama's middle name "Hussein" in a news release questioning his support of Israel and showing a photo of him wearing what it called "Muslim attire." The Republican National Committee denounced that piece of garbage.
Here’s my question to you: Is it a good strategy for Republicans to go after Michelle Obama?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How can the GOP attract young voters?
Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
If you want to know which way the political winds are blowing, look at the young. Trends in the opinions of the youngest voters are often a barometer of shifting political tides. For the Democrats as we approach the 2008 election, this is great news. For Republicans, not so good. In fact, terrible.
The Pew Research Center did a survey of young people between October of last year and March of this year. What they found was that the current generation of young voters who came of age during the George W. Bush years is giving the Democrats a wide advantage in party identification.
58% of voters under the age of 30 surveyed during that time identified or leaned toward the democratic party, compared with just 33% who identified or leaned toward the Republican party. In fact, the Democratic Party's current lead in party identification among young voters has more than doubled since the 2004 campaign - from 11 points then to 25 points now.
In fact, the Democrats' advantage among young voters is now so broad-based that younger men are now the only age category in the entire electorate where men are significantly more inclined to identify themselves as Democrats rather than Republicans.
And if you're John McCain, that's a big problem.
Here’s my question to you: Why can’t the Republican Party attract more voters under the age of 30?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Tsunami of voters
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/04/14/art.ivoted.gi.jpg caption=]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The tsunami of voters to the polls looks like it will continue to sweep through states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana.
In fact, more than a half a million people are either newly registered or have switched their registrations so they can weigh in on the Democratic primaries in those 3 states.
This shouldn't come as much of a surprise when you consider the tremendous interest generated by the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Record voter registration and turnouts – particularly on the Democratic side – are what we've been seeing all along since the Iowa caucuses.
In Pennsylvania, where only registered Democrats can vote next Tuesday, more than 300,000 people have completed new registrations or switched to vote Democrat since the first of the year.
North Carolina, whose May 6th primary is open to Democrats and unaffiliated voters, has at least 122,000 people who are newly registered. And there could be even more new voters since a "same-day registration" law there lets people register and vote early between April 17th and May 3rd.
As for Indiana, its primary also on May 6th is open to all voters, and about 150,000 new ones have signed up since January 1st.
One expert on voting trends tells The Boston Globe that all this interest in the primary season quote "is an indication that we're going to see a very high turnout rate in the general election, perhaps as high as we haven't seen in a century in American politics."
But others question whether all the excitement will last and if new voters will remain engaged in politics after this presidential election.
Here’s my question to you: How does your interest in the 2008 elections compare to past elections?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Americans revved up for election?
Enthusiastic New Hampshire Primary Goers (PHOTO CREDIT: AP)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
"Americans are revved up... and ready to vote."
That's according to a front page story in "USA Today." We saw it with record turnouts in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary... and now this: by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans are pumped up for the upcoming election.
A new USA Today-Gallup poll shows that compared to previous elections, 62% of those surveyed say they're "more enthusiastic" about voting this time around.
So what's getting people so fueled up for this election? The reasons are many… including opposition to the war in Iraq, anxiety about a possible recession, dissatisfaction with President Bush and disgust with gridlock in Washington.
It's a good thing then that Americans seem optimistic about what they're seeing out there on the campaign trail.
This same poll shows 87% of those surveyed say it makes a real difference who is elected president. 84% say there's a candidate running who would make a good president, and that's a bipartisan view. 72% say the candidates are talking about issues that they, the people, really care about. And, 67% say the election process is working the way it should.
Here’s my question to you: Are you more enthusiastic than usual about this year’s election?
To see the Cafferty File video click here
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
A 3rd place finish for Clinton?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Remember when all we heard from Hillary Clinton was, "When I am the president… when I am elected president… etc.? Funny how things change. Don't hear that from her so much anymore. These days it's more like, "If I am the nominee…"
Ever since Hillary Clinton was asked if she favored giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens, she's been struggling.
And it couldn't be more obvious to anyone who is paying attention. Quick… Get mom and the kid out on the campaign trail. Try to convince the voters I'm all warm and fuzzy instead of the cold calculating political machine many of them think I am.
Is it working? We'll know if it's working in Iowa in a few hours. But going into tonight's caucuses, Hillary is nowhere near the juggernaut and presumed nominee she once was. In fact, one major national poll now suggests Clinton could finish third in the Hawkeye state behind Barack Obama and John Edwards.
Granted losing Iowa isn't like losing California, but consider this. Momentum's a funny thing. Have it and you can do no wrong. Lose it and you can lose everything. Hillary still has the lead in some New Hampshire polls, but Barack Obama is now leading in others. New Hampshire votes next Tuesday. That's where that momentum thing comes in. And what if she doesn't just lose in Iowa. What if she finishes worse than second, behind both Obama and Edwards?
Here’s my question to you: What would a third place finish in Iowa mean for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Surviving Iowa & New Hampshire?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Iowa caucuses tonight could be a make-or-break event for some of the presidential hopefuls.
Even before Iowans make their choices, there are reports that Republican Fred Thompson may drop out of the race within days if he places a distant third, or worse. Sources suggest if he drops out, he will then endorse John McCain, which could shake up the race in New Hampshire. And Thompson probably won't be the only one to hang it up.
A piece in "The Politico" today asks if there really are three tickets out of Iowa. Although candidates like to talk about how winning "gold, silver, or bronze" is enough, a third-place finish in Iowa has almost always meant the end of the road for presidential wanna-bees. Sometimes, even a second place finish in Iowa isn't good enough.
Top tier candidates are likely to stay in the race if they don't do well in Iowa, but some of the others will likely vanish. The trick for candidates in the Iowa caucuses has always been to exceed media expectations, meaning if you can do better than expected, you're likely to still be a news story.
Here’s my question to you: Which candidates won't still be around after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Does $ talk in Iowa?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Money can buy a lot of things, especially when it comes to politics... but the Iowa caucuses may not be one of them.
The Los Angeles Times reports today that although the presidential contenders have poured tens of millions of dollars into the contest there, history shows that the candidate who spends the most in Iowa doesn't always win.
We don't know exactly how much candidates have spent in Iowa this year. But we do know this: both Mike Huckabee and John Edwards are threatening to win Iowa despite being overwhelmingly outspent by their opponents. For example, Republican Mitt Romney spent about $52 million running for president through September of last year, much of it in Iowa. During that same period, Huckabee spent $1.7 million.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have reportedly spent about $20 million each in Iowa, compared to about $4 million for Edwards.
For years ago, Howard Dean outspent both John Kerry and John Edwards before Iowa, and we all know what happened to Dean. In 1988, Pat Robertson outspent several other Republicans in the running, but failed to win Iowa.
Here’s my question to you: What does it say about the Iowa caucuses that candidates who spend the most money don’t necessarily win there?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments