Can Obama Save the Democrats?
In front of 10,000 people at the Portland Convention Center, Barack Obama tried to get a clear message across on Wednesday, October 20. The Republicans "figure you're going to forget — because you're angry about the situation,” he declared. "But make no mistake: this election isn't about anger, it's not about fear. This election is a choice. And the stakes could not be higher."
Conscious of the fact that the final two weeks before the elections will be crucial, the president has set himself a busy schedule: campaign rallies in five states, neighborhood campaign fundraisers and meetings, not to mention a rather eagerly-anticipated appearance next week on The Daily Show. The avowed goal is to mobilize the electorate that carried him to the White House in 2008, in particular, women and youth. As Obama's adviser David Axelrod explains, "Our challenge is to make them [the voters] understand this is a consequential election and we need them to participate."
The first stop will be the West Coast, a democratic bastion where a number of incumbent senators and governors are having difficulties. The Democratic candidate for governor of Oregon, John Kitzhaber, has been forced into overtime by a former NBA player, and the senators from Washington and California, Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer, respectively, are also having trouble. Victory in these two contests — considered certain only a little while back — are crucial for the White House. The Republicans control 41 seats out of 100 in the Senate and need to capture seven of the eight elections where the incumbent is a Democrat to take control. Republican successes in California and Washington would herald a veritable electoral disaster for the Democrats.
In Oregon and California, as in Nevada where Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is slightly behind, the key subject of the election is the economy. A Bloomberg pool carried out at the beginning of October indicated that unemployment is the major concern for half of the American electorate. This is even more so in these three states, where deficits are ballooning and the unemployment rate is above the national average of 9.6 percent.
In an analysis of the election, IFOP (French Public Opinion Institute) concluded that the loss of voter confidence in the Democrats can be explained in two manners. The first is the inability to solve the problems of the economy:
"Already in 2008 at an early stage of the economic crisis, the issue of employment was the focus of attention of voters. At that point, they had greater confidence in the ability of the Democrats to restore economic health, a factor that was a major contributor to the victory of Barack Obama. Since then, the situation has reversed and the Republicans now seem to be more credible."
But the abysmal popularity of Congress, and in particular that of incumbents, also plays a role: "Congress has a particularly low approval rating – only 21 percent of Americans approve of its performance … This dissatisfaction logically extends to its members – only 9 percent of Americans believe that they 'deserve to be re-elected' against 79 percent who believe that newcomers should be given the nod."
The toxicity of Obama.
Confronted with all these negative trends, the Democratic Party is counting on the president himself to begin to set the situation right. While IFOP predicts that the 2010 midterm elections will not be "polarized by the figure of the President, who will serve as neither good luck charm nor as bogeyman,” a number of commentators have begun to pose the question — and are seriously leaning towards the second view.
Backed by numerous public opinion polls, the pollster Steve Lombardo likens Obama's reforms to "an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party.” As a result, "congressional Democrats will probably suffer a historic defeat on November 2." Lombardo highlights three key factors to support his analysis:
1. "The President's overall approval rating in toss-up Congressional districts is toxic. Quite simply, he is killing Democrats in these districts."
2. "Voter perception of Obama's handling of key issues is abysmal."
3. "Obama lost political independents in the summer of 2009 with his health care push and they NEVER came back."
Real Clear Politics provides concrete examples of this "toxicity" of Obama. The site relates the show of force in three districts — the 24th of Florida, the 4th of Colorado and the 16th of Ohio — controlled by the Democrats since 2008. In each case, after much hesitation the incumbents voted at the last minute in favor of health care reform, and in each case they are now considered to be sure losers. "The rule,” concludes the author, "seems to be that casting a decisive vote for Obamacare tends to be a career-ender."
Conscious of the fact that the final two weeks before the elections will be crucial, the president has set himself a busy schedule: campaign rallies in five states, neighborhood campaign fundraisers and meetings, not to mention a rather eagerly-anticipated appearance next week on The Daily Show. The avowed goal is to mobilize the electorate that carried him to the White House in 2008, in particular, women and youth. As Obama's adviser David Axelrod explains, "Our challenge is to make them [the voters] understand this is a consequential election and we need them to participate."
The first stop will be the West Coast, a democratic bastion where a number of incumbent senators and governors are having difficulties. The Democratic candidate for governor of Oregon, John Kitzhaber, has been forced into overtime by a former NBA player, and the senators from Washington and California, Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer, respectively, are also having trouble. Victory in these two contests — considered certain only a little while back — are crucial for the White House. The Republicans control 41 seats out of 100 in the Senate and need to capture seven of the eight elections where the incumbent is a Democrat to take control. Republican successes in California and Washington would herald a veritable electoral disaster for the Democrats.
In Oregon and California, as in Nevada where Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is slightly behind, the key subject of the election is the economy. A Bloomberg pool carried out at the beginning of October indicated that unemployment is the major concern for half of the American electorate. This is even more so in these three states, where deficits are ballooning and the unemployment rate is above the national average of 9.6 percent.
In an analysis of the election, IFOP (French Public Opinion Institute) concluded that the loss of voter confidence in the Democrats can be explained in two manners. The first is the inability to solve the problems of the economy:
"Already in 2008 at an early stage of the economic crisis, the issue of employment was the focus of attention of voters. At that point, they had greater confidence in the ability of the Democrats to restore economic health, a factor that was a major contributor to the victory of Barack Obama. Since then, the situation has reversed and the Republicans now seem to be more credible."
But the abysmal popularity of Congress, and in particular that of incumbents, also plays a role: "Congress has a particularly low approval rating – only 21 percent of Americans approve of its performance … This dissatisfaction logically extends to its members – only 9 percent of Americans believe that they 'deserve to be re-elected' against 79 percent who believe that newcomers should be given the nod."
The toxicity of Obama.
Confronted with all these negative trends, the Democratic Party is counting on the president himself to begin to set the situation right. While IFOP predicts that the 2010 midterm elections will not be "polarized by the figure of the President, who will serve as neither good luck charm nor as bogeyman,” a number of commentators have begun to pose the question — and are seriously leaning towards the second view.
Backed by numerous public opinion polls, the pollster Steve Lombardo likens Obama's reforms to "an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party.” As a result, "congressional Democrats will probably suffer a historic defeat on November 2." Lombardo highlights three key factors to support his analysis:
1. "The President's overall approval rating in toss-up Congressional districts is toxic. Quite simply, he is killing Democrats in these districts."
2. "Voter perception of Obama's handling of key issues is abysmal."
3. "Obama lost political independents in the summer of 2009 with his health care push and they NEVER came back."
Real Clear Politics provides concrete examples of this "toxicity" of Obama. The site relates the show of force in three districts — the 24th of Florida, the 4th of Colorado and the 16th of Ohio — controlled by the Democrats since 2008. In each case, after much hesitation the incumbents voted at the last minute in favor of health care reform, and in each case they are now considered to be sure losers. "The rule,” concludes the author, "seems to be that casting a decisive vote for Obamacare tends to be a career-ender."