Gallup Polling Suggests Democrats Are Again In Trouble In This Year's Midterm Election

In 2010, America saw a sea change in politics with Democrats losing big at both the federal and state levels.  At the federal level, the Republicans retook the House of Representatives and the Senate Democrats lost their two-thirds, legislative super majority.

In that year, more than anything else, ObamaCare was adversely on the minds of the voters.  But no group was more active in punishing the Democrats for the health care law than seniors.  A post election analysis showed that 61% of those aged 65 years or older turned out to vote.  The highest percentage of any age group. Of those 55 to 65, the turnout rate was still relatively high at 54%. Only 37% of those 25 to 44 voted that year.  Worse yet, only 21% of the nation's youth turned out.

One only has to look at this graph from Gallup to understand why 2010 was such a bad year for the Democrats:

 

As this chart shows, Democrats went from a positive 13% party affiliation advantage among seniors in 2006 to a negative 6% disadvantage in 2010.  That's really surprising because the drop took place during the supposed Great Recession.  A recession that the Democrats were constantly blaming on Bush and the Republicans.  Even the "younger" Americans trended away from the Democrats but still left their party with a 2% voting advantage in 2010.

While Gallup suggests that the Democrats have recovered from their 2010 lows, seniors are still a negative for the Democrats; and, if 2010 was a midterm blueprint, they and their high turnout are the one's who will probably decide who wins or loses in the Fall.

In another polling report, Gallup also indicates a loss of  Democrat party affiliation among all whites and all non-whites:

In this polling result, the Democrats bottomed out in 2011 with their party reflecting a 14 percentage point disadvantage among all whites.  On top of that, a normally solid base for the Democrats, saw a drop from a high of 58% to just 43% in 2011; meaning that, no longer, were Democrats able to hold a majority against non-whites.  In the case of whites, there has only been a recovery of 2 percentage points since 2010.  For non-whites, the story is even more grim with support for Democrats still less than a majority at 45%.

Now, none of the above charts reflect any attitudinal changes that may have taken place since the roll out of ObamaCare.  However, my guess is that there has been another 2010-like shift away from the Democrats.  If so, I truly believe the Democrats will lose big again with the loss of control of the Senate.

References:

Why Older Citizens are More Likely to Vote: http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2012/03/19/why-older-citizens-are-more-likely-to-vote

U.S. Seniors Have Realigned With the Republican Party: http://www.gallup.com/poll/168083/seniors-realigned-republican-party.aspx

U.S. Whites More Solidly Republican in Recent Years: http://www.gallup.com/poll/168059/whites-solidly-republican-recent-years.aspx

pb 

The 2010 Elections Changed Government From The Outside

In the President's Univision Q&A session, Obama said that Washington cannot be changed from the inside. He said it had to be done from the outside; implying that only the voters can determine the direction of government.  He further went on to say that this is why he was elected and why ObamaCare got passed into law.



Well, it seems Mr. Obama is forgetting the landslide, throw-the-bums out election of 2010.  The people gave the House of Representative back to the Republicans because they didn't agree with how the Democrats and Obama were "changing" things; starting with ObamaCare. They also took away the President's filibuster proof Democratic Senate.   All across the country, state legislatures and governorships were handed over to Republicans.

Obama is living in some kind of fantasy world if he thinks people are happy with the kind of change he  brought to Washington.

The 2008 Wins Weren't What The Democrats Thought They Were

If you listened to almost any Democrat over the last year, you would have heard an echo in their words that said America voted for "change" and that was the mandate that they were handed. However, today's polling is really telling us that Americans were primarily upset about the economy under Bush and the Republicans. They were not wishing for a massive accumulation of debt and the promotion of a huge left-wing social agenda.

In retrospect, I think almost any Democrat could have won against any Republican in 2008. That's because the conditions on the ground -- from the collapse of the housing bubble to the economic meltdown of a recession -- sealed the fate of the Republicans and left the door wide open for the Democrats to win control of both Houses of Congress.

What the Democrats sensed as a "mandate" was actually a rebellion. America wasn't voting for the Democrats in 2008. They were voting against the Republicans. That subtle nuance is why the Democrats are so wrong in what they are doing today. That is why Obama is seeing the worst ever December polling numbers of any President in history. Now, we are seeing a Democratic party that may lose heavily in this Fall's mid-term election because they don't truly understand why they now have control; and, because of this, they have clearly overstepped their boundaries.

There are those on the left -- including the national media -- that seem to believe that Democrats will simply win or lose this Fall's election on the basis of the jobs picture. I don't think so. I think that there are a number of elements that will result in big losses for them in November; and, the blame for those losses must be shouldered by the bad management at the top by Obama and the current Democratic majority in Congress.

Surely, the economy will be a big issue. But, the Democrats and Obama actually lost the "blame Bush" excuse when they passed the massive Stimulus Plan and, then, America found out that it didn't work. So, in essence, they became owners of this economy and, I think, short of anything less than 8 percent unemployment in the Fall, they will be held accountable.

I think, too, that America is disappointed in the "bait and switch" tactics that they have been getting from Obama. He preached fiscal control and yet blew that out of the water in January with the Stimulus Package and the final 2009 Omnibus bill. There was supposed to be transparency; but, the public saw none. And in complete contrast to reaching across the aisle, he has shut out the Republicans completely.

Lastly, Obama's national security positions are a joke. He has embarked on prosecuting CIA personnel for enhanced interrogation techniques and, by doing so, has probably emasculated that critical agency. He's decided to close Gitmo as if this facility is the only reason that radical Islamic terrorism is growing. He will prosecute KSM and other terrorists as if they were a bunch of ordinary criminals. He and his Administration have stopped referring to the "war on terror" and are determined to Mirandize terrorists as if they robbed a liquor store. That very thing happened when they took the Christmas Day bomber into custody. Now, he's lawyered up and not talking. Worse yet, we will be offering him "plea bargain" deals like less time in jail if he coughs up any credible information about how the plot was developed; who his contacts were; and where he received the bomb materials and training.

I think the latest attempted bombing incident -- more than anything -- has shown how weak a leader Obama is. For that reason, the Democrats will probably lose more than people think in the Fall elections.

Obama's Audacity Gives New Hope For Change

When Obama wrote "The Audacity of Hope", I am quite sure that he thought he would be the instrument of change and not the object of it. But change may indeed come as a result of all the "change" that Obama is trying to force onto the American people with his extremely radical agenda.

The polls seem to be shouting a resounding "Whoa!" from those who are now becoming increasingly concerned about their country's future under the Obama Administration and the Democrats of Congress. Those same polls seem to reflect that definite change may be impending for America's current political leadership.

Polling now shows that the Democratic Governor, John Corzine, in the very blue State of New Jersey, is in trouble against his Republican challenger (Click to See: "Christie maintains lead over Corzine in poll"). In Virginia, that Democratic Governor has also fallen behind his Republican challenger (Click to: "McDonnell Leads Latest Poll in Virginia's Governor Race"). Senator Barbara Boxer has lost her normally dominant strength in that always-blue State of California. She only leads her opponent, Republican Carly Florina, by a mere 4 points and that campaign hasn't even really started (Click to See: "Poll: Carly Fiorina Closing Gap in Calif. Senate Race"). Then, there's Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate. Polls show his numbers have plummeted to a 34 percent approval rating (Click to See the USAToday Story: "Poll: 34% approval for Harry Reid" ). Unfortunately, the Republicans can't seem to find a strong challenger to oppose him in 2010.

What should be more worrisome for Obama and the Democrats is the fact that, for the first time in years, people are saying that they would vote for a generic Republican over any generic Democrat (Click to See Real Clear Politics Polling Data).

Despite all this, the Democrats blindly and deafly push on with their agenda. It is as if they think they are at the Alamo and are all willing to die to save Texas; or, as in this case, save America. But, I think one Alamo in our history is enough. So do most Americans.

The Democrat Party was hijacked by the extreme left when they gained control. Once again, they did what they always do: overstep their boundaries. They have done this before under Carter and Clinton and have lost their dominant control as a result. In the case of Clinton, the complete Congress went to the Republicans.

In football, there is an expression that a quarterback will "hear footsteps" just before he's about to be sacked. If alert and agile, that quarterback will run out of the "pocket" and avoid the sack. Politically speaking, Obama and Congress might be ignoring those same footsteps and are unwilling to run out of or abandon the ideological pocket they have put themselves in.

I can't say for sure but, I think there could be a sea of change in 2010. A "change" that I think Obama couldn't or wouldn't see or hear coming. A "change" that he created for himself through his own audacity.