By Garrett Biggs
As this election continues to be neck and neck, it will be interesting to see what kind of bounce President Obama receives from the convention this week.
Obama has a slight lead and numerous swing states would have to break against him to lose, but being a national election in a tough economy, anything is possible.
It is a highly polarized environment right now and I'm not sure we will see much of a bounce, but it's difficult to say.
More to follow.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Only 14% Give Congress Good or Excellent Rating
It appears a strong anti-incumbent mood is sweeping the nation as congress gets some of its lowest ratings yet. In the latest Rasmussen Reports survey, 14% rate the job congress is doing as “Excellent” or “Good”. Of that, only 1% say “Excellent”. 10% of Seniors, an important voting block
A majority, 54%, rate the job congress is doing as “Poor”.
These are just awful numbers.
So does this mean all politicians are in trouble? While every politician, especially those in competitive or somewhat competitive seats, should not take anything for granted, these numbers should really frighten the Democratic leadership (and perhaps some Republicans in primaries).
Why? Because other Rasmussen polling data shows that likely voters would prefer a Republican representing them in congress over a Democrat. In those polls, independent voters are shifting Republican by a 2 to 1 margin.
Getting back to the ratings on congress, only 5% of independents rate the job congress is doing as “Excellent” or “Good”, and 0% of them said “Excellent”. Ouch. 29% of Democrats rate congress “Excellent” or “Good”.
As further evidence to the electorate’s exceptionally angry mood, when asked if they believe most members of congress are corrupt, 42% of all votes said yes, vs. 36% who said no. 49% of Independents said yes, 46% of Republicans said yes and 33% of Democrats said yes (46% of Democrats said no).
All signs are pointing to a major political earthquake. Stay tuned, we’ll continue help you interpret the polls and know what’s on the voters’ minds.
A majority, 54%, rate the job congress is doing as “Poor”.
These are just awful numbers.
So does this mean all politicians are in trouble? While every politician, especially those in competitive or somewhat competitive seats, should not take anything for granted, these numbers should really frighten the Democratic leadership (and perhaps some Republicans in primaries).
Why? Because other Rasmussen polling data shows that likely voters would prefer a Republican representing them in congress over a Democrat. In those polls, independent voters are shifting Republican by a 2 to 1 margin.
Getting back to the ratings on congress, only 5% of independents rate the job congress is doing as “Excellent” or “Good”, and 0% of them said “Excellent”. Ouch. 29% of Democrats rate congress “Excellent” or “Good”.
As further evidence to the electorate’s exceptionally angry mood, when asked if they believe most members of congress are corrupt, 42% of all votes said yes, vs. 36% who said no. 49% of Independents said yes, 46% of Republicans said yes and 33% of Democrats said yes (46% of Democrats said no).
All signs are pointing to a major political earthquake. Stay tuned, we’ll continue help you interpret the polls and know what’s on the voters’ minds.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
President Obama's Thanksgiving Day Proclamation
To celebrate Thanksgiving, we are posting President Obama's Thanksgiving Day proclamation as released by the White House:
What began as a harvest celebration between European settlers and indigenous communities nearly four centuries ago has become our cherished tradition of Thanksgiving. This day's roots are intertwined with those of our nation, and its history traces the American narrative.
Today, we recall President George Washington, who proclaimed our first national day of public thanksgiving to be observed "by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God," and President Abraham Lincoln, who established our annual Thanksgiving Day to help mend a fractured nation in the midst of civil war. We also recognize the contributions of Native Americans, who helped the early colonists survive their first harsh winter and continue to strengthen our nation. From our earliest days of independence, and in times of tragedy and triumph, Americans have come together to celebrate Thanksgiving.
As Americans, we hail from every part of the world. While we observe traditions from every culture, Thanksgiving Day is a unique national tradition we all share. Its spirit binds us together as one people, each of us thankful for our common blessings.
As we gather once again among loved ones, let us also reach out to our neighbors and fellow citizens in need of a helping hand. This is a time for us to renew our bonds with one another, and we can fulfill that commitment by serving our communities and our nation throughout the year. In doing so, we pay tribute to our country's men and women in uniform who set an example of service that inspires us all. Let us be guided by the legacy of those who have fought for the freedoms for which we give thanks, and be worthy heirs to the noble tradition of goodwill shown on this day.
Now, therefore, I, Barack Obama, president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, Nov. 26, 2009, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage all the people of the United States to come together, whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place where family, friends and neighbors may gather, with gratitude for all we have received in the past year, to express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own and to share our bounty with others.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of November, in the year of our Lord 2009, and of the independence of the United States of America the 234th (year).
_ Barack Obama
What began as a harvest celebration between European settlers and indigenous communities nearly four centuries ago has become our cherished tradition of Thanksgiving. This day's roots are intertwined with those of our nation, and its history traces the American narrative.
As Americans, we hail from every part of the world. While we observe traditions from every culture, Thanksgiving Day is a unique national tradition we all share. Its spirit binds us together as one people, each of us thankful for our common blessings.
As we gather once again among loved ones, let us also reach out to our neighbors and fellow citizens in need of a helping hand. This is a time for us to renew our bonds with one another, and we can fulfill that commitment by serving our communities and our nation throughout the year. In doing so, we pay tribute to our country's men and women in uniform who set an example of service that inspires us all. Let us be guided by the legacy of those who have fought for the freedoms for which we give thanks, and be worthy heirs to the noble tradition of goodwill shown on this day.
Now, therefore, I, Barack Obama, president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, Nov. 26, 2009, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage all the people of the United States to come together, whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place where family, friends and neighbors may gather, with gratitude for all we have received in the past year, to express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own and to share our bounty with others.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of November, in the year of our Lord 2009, and of the independence of the United States of America the 234th (year).
_ Barack Obama
Monday, November 16, 2009
Free Market Health Care Reform Resources
Here are some excellent resources for use in discussing the health care reform. If you are a legislator wanting to hold your own health care town halls or craft legislation or write a learned article on the issue, these resources are a great place to start.
These are links to free-market solutions that are miles away from President Obama’s command and control style health care reform approach.
Pacific Research Institute: http://health.pacificresearch.org/
The Heritage Foundation: http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/
CATO Institute: http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements
Republican Study Committee: http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/UploadedFiles/RSC_Health_Care_Bills_Compilation--Oct2009--FINAL.doc
The Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) ideas are of particular interest because it shows there has been real reform legislation submitted by Republicans in congress, but the Democratic leadership will not show these bills the light of day.
Some highlights from the RSC group’s legislation:
A bill to reduce the number of mandated benefits: H.R. 109 (Fortenberry, R-NE). One important contributing factor in the high costs of health care are the many congressionally-mandated benefits on health plans. These benefits drive up the costs for all of us even though many consumers may not need a number of the benefits congress has decided should be offered.
This bill would permit insurance companies to offer policies with fewer mandated benefits, called “health benefit plans”. This bill aims at people who do not have health insurance provided by their company or the government and allow them to buy this low-cost alternative. This is the right idea and really should be more wide-spread than this bill would allow for.
A bill to allow health care costs to be tax deductible: H.R. 198 (Stearns, R-FL). This is an other great bill that would allow individuals to deduct from their gross income the cost of health insurance premiums and unreimbursed prescription drug expenses paid for by the taxpayer.
A bill that would allow anyone to buy a health plan based in any state: H.R. 3217 (Shadegg, R-AZ). This bill would allow anyone to purchase health insurance licensed in other states. This interstate shopping is crucial in bringing more competition – and lower costs for consumers – to our nation’s health care industry. According to this document, The National Center for Policy Analysis points out that “a healthy 25-year-old male could purchase a basic health insurance policy in Kentucky for $960 a year. That same policy in New Jersey, however, would cost $5,880 a year.”
These are just highlights of the many bills put forward by the RSC. Each of the bills noted above, and all of them listed in the link have not been considered by Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority either in committee or on the House floor. So much for competition of ideas.
And so much for President Obama’s promise to work with both parties in coming up with solutions to make health care more affordable.
These are links to free-market solutions that are miles away from President Obama’s command and control style health care reform approach.
Pacific Research Institute: http://health.pacificresearch.org/
The Heritage Foundation: http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/
CATO Institute: http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements
Republican Study Committee: http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/UploadedFiles/RSC_Health_Care_Bills_Compilation--Oct2009--FINAL.doc
The Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) ideas are of particular interest because it shows there has been real reform legislation submitted by Republicans in congress, but the Democratic leadership will not show these bills the light of day.
Some highlights from the RSC group’s legislation:
A bill to reduce the number of mandated benefits: H.R. 109 (Fortenberry, R-NE). One important contributing factor in the high costs of health care are the many congressionally-mandated benefits on health plans. These benefits drive up the costs for all of us even though many consumers may not need a number of the benefits congress has decided should be offered.
This bill would permit insurance companies to offer policies with fewer mandated benefits, called “health benefit plans”. This bill aims at people who do not have health insurance provided by their company or the government and allow them to buy this low-cost alternative. This is the right idea and really should be more wide-spread than this bill would allow for.
A bill to allow health care costs to be tax deductible: H.R. 198 (Stearns, R-FL). This is an other great bill that would allow individuals to deduct from their gross income the cost of health insurance premiums and unreimbursed prescription drug expenses paid for by the taxpayer.
A bill that would allow anyone to buy a health plan based in any state: H.R. 3217 (Shadegg, R-AZ). This bill would allow anyone to purchase health insurance licensed in other states. This interstate shopping is crucial in bringing more competition – and lower costs for consumers – to our nation’s health care industry. According to this document, The National Center for Policy Analysis points out that “a healthy 25-year-old male could purchase a basic health insurance policy in Kentucky for $960 a year. That same policy in New Jersey, however, would cost $5,880 a year.”
These are just highlights of the many bills put forward by the RSC. Each of the bills noted above, and all of them listed in the link have not been considered by Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority either in committee or on the House floor. So much for competition of ideas.
And so much for President Obama’s promise to work with both parties in coming up with solutions to make health care more affordable.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Tuesday's Winner: Tim Pawlenty
Who? That’s the question Pawlenty is focused on overcoming between now and 2012. Pawlenty is eying the Republican nomination for President, and to win a Republican nomination, one must identify with the core of the Party.
Pawlenty took a bold stroke towards this goal by breaking with a RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republican for congress in New York’s 23rd congressional district, Scozzafava, and endorsed the Conservative Party candidate, Hoffman, instead.
Hoffman lost, but it really doesn’t matter in the bigger picture for Pawlenty. This was a bold stroke aimed at brandishing his conservative beliefs – which in today’s environment is really saying we need to have a reboot of the Republican Party to make up for the borrow and spend Bush years – years in which too many Republicans tore up their registration cards to re-registers as independent voters.
Polling, as discussed in this blog before, has shown that almost three-fourths of Republican primary voters believe Republicans in congress have lost touch with Republican voters.
It looks like Pawlenty is keen on this unease within the Party and is serious about running. With this recent move, it shows us that he knows what he is doing from a campaign point of view, and you have to know how to campaign to get elected.
While Huckabee and Romney get all the attention so far, neither of them were able to sell themselves as the Complete Conservative Candidate (our moniker) in 2008, otherwise one of them would have beaten McCain for the nomination.
Where were Huckabee and Romney on New York 23? Huckabee described Scozzafava as “more liberal than 85 percent of the most liberal members of the Democrats in Congress…” That is a strong statement, that she was more liberal than 85 percent of the most liberal members of Congress. Yet he abstained from supporting Hoffman.
Romney stated “I can’t endorse our candidate (Scozzafava) in that race.” Yet he also abstained from supporting Hoffman.
It looks like on this particular issue, both Huckabee and Romney were thinking more about the establishment, insider Republican types than the Republican base of voters.
The Party continues to search for a leader.
Right now the bigger picture is what the Republican Party stands for in the long run, not merely individual numbers here and there. The Bush Whitehouse counted numbers for years, only to lose Congress, badly, we might ad.
It is worth noting that Sarah Palin endorsed Hoffman as well (Rick Santorum, a potential 2012 candidate also endorsed Hoffman). For Sarah Palin followers, this should be received as a good sign not only because it speaks to the kind of Republican she is, but also because it’s a good move politically, which hopefully for her is the start of a positive trend.
But the bigger news is for Pawlenty since he is less known and needs to make up some distance with the other Republicans who are jockeying for 2012. Republicans lose a seat in New York 23, but Governor Pawlenty wins at the end of the day.
Pawlenty took a bold stroke towards this goal by breaking with a RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republican for congress in New York’s 23rd congressional district, Scozzafava, and endorsed the Conservative Party candidate, Hoffman, instead.
Hoffman lost, but it really doesn’t matter in the bigger picture for Pawlenty. This was a bold stroke aimed at brandishing his conservative beliefs – which in today’s environment is really saying we need to have a reboot of the Republican Party to make up for the borrow and spend Bush years – years in which too many Republicans tore up their registration cards to re-registers as independent voters.
Polling, as discussed in this blog before, has shown that almost three-fourths of Republican primary voters believe Republicans in congress have lost touch with Republican voters.
It looks like Pawlenty is keen on this unease within the Party and is serious about running. With this recent move, it shows us that he knows what he is doing from a campaign point of view, and you have to know how to campaign to get elected.
While Huckabee and Romney get all the attention so far, neither of them were able to sell themselves as the Complete Conservative Candidate (our moniker) in 2008, otherwise one of them would have beaten McCain for the nomination.
Where were Huckabee and Romney on New York 23? Huckabee described Scozzafava as “more liberal than 85 percent of the most liberal members of the Democrats in Congress…” That is a strong statement, that she was more liberal than 85 percent of the most liberal members of Congress. Yet he abstained from supporting Hoffman.
Romney stated “I can’t endorse our candidate (Scozzafava) in that race.” Yet he also abstained from supporting Hoffman.
It looks like on this particular issue, both Huckabee and Romney were thinking more about the establishment, insider Republican types than the Republican base of voters.
The Party continues to search for a leader.
Right now the bigger picture is what the Republican Party stands for in the long run, not merely individual numbers here and there. The Bush Whitehouse counted numbers for years, only to lose Congress, badly, we might ad.
It is worth noting that Sarah Palin endorsed Hoffman as well (Rick Santorum, a potential 2012 candidate also endorsed Hoffman). For Sarah Palin followers, this should be received as a good sign not only because it speaks to the kind of Republican she is, but also because it’s a good move politically, which hopefully for her is the start of a positive trend.
But the bigger news is for Pawlenty since he is less known and needs to make up some distance with the other Republicans who are jockeying for 2012. Republicans lose a seat in New York 23, but Governor Pawlenty wins at the end of the day.
Meg Whitman Advertises...and Makes Progress
Does the headline shock you? It seems to make sense, to be an obvious relationship between cause and effect, right? If you get your name out there, defined as spending campaign money advertising your story or your message, people will become more familiar with you and many will be receptive to your candidacy (hopefully). This receptivity will show up in polls in the form of growing support for your campaign.
Results of the Capitol Weekly/Probolsky Research California Poll
Meg Whitman 34%
Tom Campbell 12.5%
Steve Poizner 5.5%
Previous October 8 Field Poll:
Meg Whitman 22%
Tom Campbell 20%
Steve Poizner 9%
Yet candidates in every election cycle all over the country hoard their money until days or merely a few weeks before the election under the orthodox budgeting process that you budget your campaign backwards – that is, from election-day back.
If you are a juggernaut, this may work since your opposition may never get off the ground financially, which means there will be little competition, ensuring a victory; this is especially the case if the opponent in this situation also uses the orthodox budgeting process of planning from election-day backwards.
But even juggernauts can be taken down by starting early. If advertising works near the end of a campaign, why shouldn’t it work early on?
Let that sink in. Seriously.
Many in the political consulting industry don’t believe in early advertising. They would respond by saying, “well, Biggs, it’s too early for voters to pay attention to the campaign, you should save your money until later.” This is an orthodox response to defend an old, orthodox strategy.
It just simply isn’t true that voters aren’t paying attention. It’s almost like saying people aren’t paying attention to XYZ company or to Coca-Cola. I don’t wake up every day wondering about Coca-Cola, therefore, why should Coca-Cola advertise towards me?
But when the TV ads and radio ads start appearing, suddenly the product, or candidate, gains awareness among those exposed to the advertising. Some people won’t commit early on, but many others will, and this group is big enough to gain a strong lead with. And those who are uncommitted are still being exposed to the positive (or negative) advertising and will take some “reprogramming”, or ad dollars from the opposition, to sway in the other direction.
Seeing your poll numbers rise in relationship to your advertising is momentum. This momentum is a snowball that has collateral effect, or “pin action” as Mad Money’s Jim Cramer likes to say: it creates excitement about the campaign and often leads to greater fund-raising, which helps grow the organization of the campaign at the same time (endorsements, volunteers, etc.).
And once again, we see a brave candidate in Meg Whitman getting out there early, running some good advertising spots and seeing the results in the polls. The point of this post is to show advertising early can in fact make a difference, not so much to question why Campbell and Poizner are not doing what Whitman is doing. They are not as well-heeled as Whitman is. Her campaign has spent over $19 million getting these poll numbers. However, an impact could be made doing some radio advertising on conservative talk radio in California’s different media markets for a lot less than many realize.
For candidates in smaller contests, anywhere from council to congress to state-wide elections in smaller states, small amounts of advertising money relative to what their contests are used to later on in a campaign can make a huge difference.
Results of the Capitol Weekly/Probolsky Research California Poll
Meg Whitman 34%
Tom Campbell 12.5%
Steve Poizner 5.5%
Previous October 8 Field Poll:
Meg Whitman 22%
Tom Campbell 20%
Steve Poizner 9%
Yet candidates in every election cycle all over the country hoard their money until days or merely a few weeks before the election under the orthodox budgeting process that you budget your campaign backwards – that is, from election-day back.
If you are a juggernaut, this may work since your opposition may never get off the ground financially, which means there will be little competition, ensuring a victory; this is especially the case if the opponent in this situation also uses the orthodox budgeting process of planning from election-day backwards.
But even juggernauts can be taken down by starting early. If advertising works near the end of a campaign, why shouldn’t it work early on?
Let that sink in. Seriously.
It just simply isn’t true that voters aren’t paying attention. It’s almost like saying people aren’t paying attention to XYZ company or to Coca-Cola. I don’t wake up every day wondering about Coca-Cola, therefore, why should Coca-Cola advertise towards me?
But when the TV ads and radio ads start appearing, suddenly the product, or candidate, gains awareness among those exposed to the advertising. Some people won’t commit early on, but many others will, and this group is big enough to gain a strong lead with. And those who are uncommitted are still being exposed to the positive (or negative) advertising and will take some “reprogramming”, or ad dollars from the opposition, to sway in the other direction.
Seeing your poll numbers rise in relationship to your advertising is momentum. This momentum is a snowball that has collateral effect, or “pin action” as Mad Money’s Jim Cramer likes to say: it creates excitement about the campaign and often leads to greater fund-raising, which helps grow the organization of the campaign at the same time (endorsements, volunteers, etc.).
And once again, we see a brave candidate in Meg Whitman getting out there early, running some good advertising spots and seeing the results in the polls. The point of this post is to show advertising early can in fact make a difference, not so much to question why Campbell and Poizner are not doing what Whitman is doing. They are not as well-heeled as Whitman is. Her campaign has spent over $19 million getting these poll numbers. However, an impact could be made doing some radio advertising on conservative talk radio in California’s different media markets for a lot less than many realize.
For candidates in smaller contests, anywhere from council to congress to state-wide elections in smaller states, small amounts of advertising money relative to what their contests are used to later on in a campaign can make a huge difference.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Hunt for Red, in October: Part 2
GOP: Now the Bad News
Can the GOP handle any more bad news after four straight years of bad news? Given that a number of recent polls show Republicans benefitting from a change in the voters’ mood since the 2008 elections, a little more bad news can serve to keep Republicans sharp and focused.
While voters trust Republicans on ten major issues (see Part 1) over Democrats, polling data suggests the Republican base is still unhappy with the GOP.
According to Rasmussen Reports, 73% of Republican primary voters think “Republicans in Congress lost touch with Republican voters throughout the nation.”
This suggests that the GOP still has a tremendous amount of work to do in order to unify the party. To say there is a PR problem is an understatement.
Furthermore, while voters give Democrats low marks for their work in congress (as well as mediocre approval ratings for President Obama), only 15% of primary Republican voters believe “Republicans in Congress have done a good job of representing Republican values.”
Clearly, Republicans are benefitting more from fear of what the liberal Obama Administration and congressional leadership might do next rather than from anything special the GOP is offering up thus far. Which is fine; it’s a great start and foundation to build on, and it offers a fantastic opportunity to reconnect with voters.
Meanwhile, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steel is viewed “Very” or “Somewhat” favorably by only 39% of Republican voters. 27% view him “Very” or “Somewhat” unfavorably and 35% aren’t sure.
During the 2008 campaign, there was, and still is, an ongoing public debate among Republicans over the direction of the party. A number of Republican consultants and commentators/pundits have gone so far as to say Reaganomics is dead. They have essentially suggested becoming something similar to European right of center parties and abandon issues that have worked for the GOP in the past.
The real problem, from our point of view, is that in recent years the GOP has drifted from its core values, and, with the poll numbers just cited as evidence, we aren’t the only ones who think this.
We take the data to mean voters are hungry for fresh ideas, ideas that directly counter the lurch to the left by the Democratic leadership, without compromising core Republican principles.
This means coming up with an agenda that is uniquely different from the Democrats’, right down to the slogans employed. Right now is a great time to re-awaken the Reagan optimism that put our country, and the GOP, back on track. The hunt continues.
Can the GOP handle any more bad news after four straight years of bad news? Given that a number of recent polls show Republicans benefitting from a change in the voters’ mood since the 2008 elections, a little more bad news can serve to keep Republicans sharp and focused.
While voters trust Republicans on ten major issues (see Part 1) over Democrats, polling data suggests the Republican base is still unhappy with the GOP.
According to Rasmussen Reports, 73% of Republican primary voters think “Republicans in Congress lost touch with Republican voters throughout the nation.”
This suggests that the GOP still has a tremendous amount of work to do in order to unify the party. To say there is a PR problem is an understatement.
Furthermore, while voters give Democrats low marks for their work in congress (as well as mediocre approval ratings for President Obama), only 15% of primary Republican voters believe “Republicans in Congress have done a good job of representing Republican values.”
Clearly, Republicans are benefitting more from fear of what the liberal Obama Administration and congressional leadership might do next rather than from anything special the GOP is offering up thus far. Which is fine; it’s a great start and foundation to build on, and it offers a fantastic opportunity to reconnect with voters.
Meanwhile, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steel is viewed “Very” or “Somewhat” favorably by only 39% of Republican voters. 27% view him “Very” or “Somewhat” unfavorably and 35% aren’t sure.
During the 2008 campaign, there was, and still is, an ongoing public debate among Republicans over the direction of the party. A number of Republican consultants and commentators/pundits have gone so far as to say Reaganomics is dead. They have essentially suggested becoming something similar to European right of center parties and abandon issues that have worked for the GOP in the past.
The real problem, from our point of view, is that in recent years the GOP has drifted from its core values, and, with the poll numbers just cited as evidence, we aren’t the only ones who think this.
We take the data to mean voters are hungry for fresh ideas, ideas that directly counter the lurch to the left by the Democratic leadership, without compromising core Republican principles.
This means coming up with an agenda that is uniquely different from the Democrats’, right down to the slogans employed. Right now is a great time to re-awaken the Reagan optimism that put our country, and the GOP, back on track. The hunt continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
