Sotomayor Confirmed
In a vote that held absolutely no drama, the Senate this week voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court by a vote of 68-31. With this vote, she becomes the first ever Latina Supreme Court Justice (and arguably the most powerful Latina in U.S. history) and only the third-ever woman Supreme Court Justice (following Sandra Day O'Connor who was appointed by Reagan and Ruth Bader Ginsberg who was appointed by Clinton.) Her "yea" total of 68 falls short of the 70-75 votes that I had been predicting she would receive and points to a troubling trend in court appointments. Confirmation votes are becoming increasingly partisan, as illustrated by Sotomayor, whose harshest critics would concede is highly qualified to be on the court and whose lower court decisions have been well within the mainstream. When Antonin Scalia, by far the most conservative justice of this generation, was appointed by Reagan, he was confirmed without dissent. Likewise for Ginsberg during the Clinton administration. Sure, Bork was shot down, but he was well outside of the mainstream. Sure, Thomas was only voted in 52-48, but he was very marginally qualified and came with some heavy sexual harrassment baggage. It is really only in the past 10 years that political philosophy alone became a reason to vote against a nominee.
Frankly, it's the fault of the Democrats. Samuel Alito was clearly a strongly qualified nominee whose views, while conservative, were certainly not outside of the mainstream. His confirmation was all but assured. Yet Democrats, including then-Senator Obama, led a stream of "nay" votes to symbolically protest his conservative philosophy. What comes around goes around, as they say.
Not that I forgive members of the GOP, who were somehow outraged by the votes against Alito but had no problem returning the favor to Sotomayor. Shame on you, Sen's Hatch (R-UT), McCain (R-AZ) and Sessions (R-AL). You sold out your principles for cheap political points. At least some members of the GOP showed philosophical consistency on this issue, notably Sen's Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Dick Lugar (R-IN) and departing GOP Sen's Martinez, Gregg (at least we think he is departing) and Bond (moderates Snowe and Collins also voted for confirmation, but I suspect they more or less supported Sotomayor's judicial philosophy to begin with.)
Is this all an acadmeic discussion given that Sotomayor got confirmed? With the same party in control of the Presidency and the Senate, it is for now. But it certainly isn't hard to imagine a situation down the road where those powers are split and it creates an unbreakable gridlock where the Senate refuses to confirm qualified candidates becacuse they don't like their judicial philosophies. That is not a healthy state of affairs.
Martinez to Resign
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), who had already announced that he would not seek re-election, has now announced that he will resign his seat early. Some will probably look for a secret plot around this, but I actually think that this is a straight-forward case of a guy tired with his job. His resignation has no real impact on the political situation there -- Gov. Charlie Crist (R) will appoint a "field-filler", a man or woman who will vote Republican but has no designs on running for re-election, maintaining the existing balance of power in the Senate. Crist will still be the overwhelming front-runner to win the seat in 2010. This really has marginal geo-political effect. Good for Sen. Martinez for leaving a job he doesn't like and spending time with his family.
Healthcare Turns Ugly
Town hall meetings crashed by conservative protestors shouting down congressmen, outbursts of violence, nazi imagery? This is all WAY over the top for a debate on the health care system. If conservatives are outraged at greater government involvement in the economy and health care, I'm not sure the best way to convince others is to display violence and hate. GOP leaders need to get out in front of this and condemn the violence. Regrettably, few have and some are attempting to legitimize these strong-arm tactics. My hope is that the public will be smarter and see these people for who they really are -- thoughtless thugs.
We absolutely need to have a debate in this country on the degree of government involvement in health care. This kind of desparate behavior does nothing to advance that debate.
Are we going to have grades every 100 days?
Okay, 100 days has always been a benchmark for a new President. But a set of 200 day report cards? With hostages coming home from North Korea, two wars still going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, a significant and energetic debate over health care and the enviroment going on, do we seriously have time to assign letter grades on every issue, arbitrarily averaged based on whoever happened to be watching CNN and had access to text-messaging during a given 7 minutes? Does this add anything to the discussion?
I refuse to participate. I'll give out grades after President Obama has finished his first year. Giving him a grade on health care or the environment while the crux of his policies are still being debated in congress is just silly.
Okay, I know what you are going to say...I publish a polling update every week or two. I'd love to tell you how that is different, but I have no good explanation.
Signs of Real Recovery?
GDP decline slowed to -1.0% in the second quarter of 2009, unemployment dropped ever-so-slightly in July from 9.5% to 9.4% and Wall Street is surging. I've been saying for a long time that the recession would end this summer, but it's still nice to see some signs it is coming true.
Now is the time that the stimulus bill really needs to get going -- the system is stabilized but unemployment is still high -- getting people back to work needs to be priority #1.
Thanks for reading...if you like this blog, tell your friends.
Showing posts with label Sonia Sotomayor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sonia Sotomayor. Show all posts
Friday, August 7, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!
I'm traveling through Australia on business for the next two weeks. Once I get adjusted to the jet-lag and caught up a little on the news, I will be posting blogs remotely. For now, I appreciate your patience -- I have basically been traveling all weekend and haven't had much chance to get caught up on the news.
Suffice it to say:
(1) Sotomayor is still a lock for confirmation
(2) Health Care reform appears to be in big trouble (more on that in my next blog)
(3) The budgeting process continues in congress
(4) President Obama is still popular, but has continued to show diminished strength in his ratings in July
More to come very soon!
Suffice it to say:
(1) Sotomayor is still a lock for confirmation
(2) Health Care reform appears to be in big trouble (more on that in my next blog)
(3) The budgeting process continues in congress
(4) President Obama is still popular, but has continued to show diminished strength in his ratings in July
More to come very soon!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Sotomayor - Cool Under Fire, What is the GOP Position on the Economy?
Sonia Sotomayor, A Shoe-In
Over the last two days, the Senate Judiciary committee has begun its required confirmation hearings of Supreme Court-Designee Sonia Sotomayor. These hearings lack much drama, since as Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) pointed out, the outcome is virtually assured. Sotomayor will be confirmed. The only interesting questions are whether the respective parties score any political points and how large the margin of confirmation will be (something approximating a 75/25 split would appear likely to this observer, with all Democrats voting for confirmation and a sizeable number of Republicans.)
Sotomayor handled complex questions about third-rail issues of law such as abortion, gun ownership, affirmative action and others with a strong command of the law, sound-reasoning and the kind of artful evasion around nailing down specific viewpoints that we have come to expect from candidates in the post-Bork era.
Democrats such as Leahy, Franken and Whitehouse heaped the praise on Sotomayor's resume and tossed up softball questions. Graham, Sessions and company pressed her harder, but were professional and respectful in their questioning.
In the end, I thought Sotomayor was extremely cool under fire. My only criticism is that I believe she was blatantly deceitful in her response to questions around the now-infamous "wise latina woman" remark. Her response to the question was essentially that it had been an inartful attempt to express the same sentiment as Sandra Day O'Connor had expressed when she had said that a wise man and a wise woman would hopefully reach the same conclusion. Um, sorry Judge, but I read the quote in its entire context and it is readily evident to me that you were consciously REBUTTING O'Connor's point of view. And that should be okay. It's okay to think that your Latina heritage provides you a unique perspective that isn't on the court today. It is okay to think it is important to have those diverse perspectives on the court. If Sotomayor feels she needs to lie about these views that she so obviously holds, what a sad day indeed.
The GOP Position on the Economy
To gather form the GOP criticism the last few days of the Obama economic program: we are spending too much money and incurring too much debt, and furthermore the stimulus is a failure because we aren't spending the money fast enough. Huh? Not spending the stimulus fast enough? Shouldn't that criticism be coming from the left? I thought this spending wasn't going to help?
This Admiral Stockdale-like (sorry for those of you under 25, you probably have no idea what I'm referencing) ping-ponging of viewpoints illustrates the central problem for the GOP: they do not have a coherent economic policy today.
The context of the history of GOP economic theories is pretty simple. Pre-1980, the GOP was very focused on the concept of deficit reduction. The belief was that a balanced budget would lead to more stable and effective capital markets and money would be freed up to invest in innovation and growth rather than tied up in government bonds. In 1980, that all changed with the advent of Reagonomics. The theory behind Reagonomics essentially was: taxes are a burden on the economy and by cutting taxes, particularly on the upper-class, you can spur investment and job creation which will ultimately increase wealth for all and increase the tax base. The theory was etched on a napkin when the infamous Laugher curve was born, which expressed the theory that raising tax rates could actually supress tax revenue by supressing growth.
So what is the theory today? It can't be that tax cuts cure all ills. We've cut taxes many times over the past few years (the Bush cuts, which heavily impacted the upper brackets, the Bush Stimulus package and now with the most recent stimulus package) and our economy has been in shambles. It's also hard to go back to the balanced budget theory when you had your hand in taking us from a surplus to an eye-popping $1.5 trillion+ deficit.
So, what is the GOP arguing right now? I'm not exactly sure, other than to say that what Obama is doing isn't working. It seems they are attempting to meld the two classic Republican arguments by arguing on the one hand to cut taxes and not allow upper-income tax breaks to expire while on the other hand argue that our deficit is out of control. It's a two-step that doesn't pass intellectual muster and doesn't make for real good bumper stickers. "Tax cuts for the rich! Because government spending is bad!"
What the GOP SHOULD be arguing right now is for government-guided but market-driven solutions to problems like health care, carbon emissions, etc. They should be proposing that a real stimulus would involve upgrading our electrical grid, not making Medicaid transfer payments to states. They SHOULD be developing and presenting a REAL balanced budget (with actual numbers this time) since President Obama has not shown us anything close to one in the next ten years. They should be doing all these things. But that would require leadership.
Where are Jack Kemp and William F. Buckley when you need them?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Over the last two days, the Senate Judiciary committee has begun its required confirmation hearings of Supreme Court-Designee Sonia Sotomayor. These hearings lack much drama, since as Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) pointed out, the outcome is virtually assured. Sotomayor will be confirmed. The only interesting questions are whether the respective parties score any political points and how large the margin of confirmation will be (something approximating a 75/25 split would appear likely to this observer, with all Democrats voting for confirmation and a sizeable number of Republicans.)
Sotomayor handled complex questions about third-rail issues of law such as abortion, gun ownership, affirmative action and others with a strong command of the law, sound-reasoning and the kind of artful evasion around nailing down specific viewpoints that we have come to expect from candidates in the post-Bork era.
Democrats such as Leahy, Franken and Whitehouse heaped the praise on Sotomayor's resume and tossed up softball questions. Graham, Sessions and company pressed her harder, but were professional and respectful in their questioning.
In the end, I thought Sotomayor was extremely cool under fire. My only criticism is that I believe she was blatantly deceitful in her response to questions around the now-infamous "wise latina woman" remark. Her response to the question was essentially that it had been an inartful attempt to express the same sentiment as Sandra Day O'Connor had expressed when she had said that a wise man and a wise woman would hopefully reach the same conclusion. Um, sorry Judge, but I read the quote in its entire context and it is readily evident to me that you were consciously REBUTTING O'Connor's point of view. And that should be okay. It's okay to think that your Latina heritage provides you a unique perspective that isn't on the court today. It is okay to think it is important to have those diverse perspectives on the court. If Sotomayor feels she needs to lie about these views that she so obviously holds, what a sad day indeed.
The GOP Position on the Economy
To gather form the GOP criticism the last few days of the Obama economic program: we are spending too much money and incurring too much debt, and furthermore the stimulus is a failure because we aren't spending the money fast enough. Huh? Not spending the stimulus fast enough? Shouldn't that criticism be coming from the left? I thought this spending wasn't going to help?
This Admiral Stockdale-like (sorry for those of you under 25, you probably have no idea what I'm referencing) ping-ponging of viewpoints illustrates the central problem for the GOP: they do not have a coherent economic policy today.
The context of the history of GOP economic theories is pretty simple. Pre-1980, the GOP was very focused on the concept of deficit reduction. The belief was that a balanced budget would lead to more stable and effective capital markets and money would be freed up to invest in innovation and growth rather than tied up in government bonds. In 1980, that all changed with the advent of Reagonomics. The theory behind Reagonomics essentially was: taxes are a burden on the economy and by cutting taxes, particularly on the upper-class, you can spur investment and job creation which will ultimately increase wealth for all and increase the tax base. The theory was etched on a napkin when the infamous Laugher curve was born, which expressed the theory that raising tax rates could actually supress tax revenue by supressing growth.
So what is the theory today? It can't be that tax cuts cure all ills. We've cut taxes many times over the past few years (the Bush cuts, which heavily impacted the upper brackets, the Bush Stimulus package and now with the most recent stimulus package) and our economy has been in shambles. It's also hard to go back to the balanced budget theory when you had your hand in taking us from a surplus to an eye-popping $1.5 trillion+ deficit.
So, what is the GOP arguing right now? I'm not exactly sure, other than to say that what Obama is doing isn't working. It seems they are attempting to meld the two classic Republican arguments by arguing on the one hand to cut taxes and not allow upper-income tax breaks to expire while on the other hand argue that our deficit is out of control. It's a two-step that doesn't pass intellectual muster and doesn't make for real good bumper stickers. "Tax cuts for the rich! Because government spending is bad!"
What the GOP SHOULD be arguing right now is for government-guided but market-driven solutions to problems like health care, carbon emissions, etc. They should be proposing that a real stimulus would involve upgrading our electrical grid, not making Medicaid transfer payments to states. They SHOULD be developing and presenting a REAL balanced budget (with actual numbers this time) since President Obama has not shown us anything close to one in the next ten years. They should be doing all these things. But that would require leadership.
Where are Jack Kemp and William F. Buckley when you need them?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama Dips His Toes into Iran, Is This the New Economic Normal?, Things That Annoy Me
President Obama Wades Carefully into Iran Situation
In his press conference today, President Obama declared that he was "appalled and outraged" at violence against protesters in Iran. It was the most direct statement made by the administration to date calling to task the powers that be in Iran. President Obama continued to stop short of directly criticizing the election process or result.
This appears to be par for course for President Obama, whose tendencies on both foreign and domestic issues to date has been to take a measured approach and slowly ramp up rhetoric in response to conditions. We had a glimpse of this in the campaign -- think back to the Jeremiah Wright controversy.
I doubt that his press conference today will appease conservatives who sought much more direct influence from the White House from the get-go. President Obama's measured approach is the polar opposite of former President Bush's. If you are a liberal, he is thoughtful, contemplative and intellectually geared. If you are a conservative, he is wishy-washy, indecisive and lacks courage. PoTAtoes, potTAHtoes.
It's Stopped Getting Worse, but Will it Get Better?
The gains in the stock market has stalled, unemployment is still at a record high and the World Bank just revised its global economic forecast down to a 2.9% contraction in the global economy this year.
It has many thinking -- you call this a recovery?
The problem the markets are experiencing right now is that while we no longer appear on the verge of a global economic meltdown, as we did to many in late Februrary and some of the economic statistics (home sales, retail sales, etc.) have stopped declining, all of the economic indicators have stabilized at a lower level.
It has led many to ask the question -- is this the new norm? Will we be living with 9-10% unemployment, zero growth and hard-to-get credit for generations to come?
I don't think so. The engine that drives long-term economic prospects is productivity growth - and productivity is still growing. The economy is performing under capacity right now -- too many people out of work, too many people working part time, too many people underemployed. But these are transitional, not structural issues. In fact, the history is that recessions often spawn productivity growth as businesses find creative ways to be more efficient out of survival instinct. We certainly saw this in the last 3 recessions. So, rest assured, things WILL get better again.
What may be fundamental changed is credit conditions. The S&P may take years to get back to 1,500 because corporations have realized the risk that massively debt-ridden balance sheets can cause (ask a few casino companies or maybe some banks.) Individuals are saving again because they realize that they can no longer rely on their home value and their 401K always going up. So thrift may be back in, at least for a while. But we grew the economy pretty well in the 1950s and people were relatively a lot more thrifty then. Innovation drives productivity, not spending.
Things That Annoy Me
A new feature -- suggested by my wife -- some short-takes on some things I find very annoying, in the political world and elsewhere. So, here it goes...things that annoy me:
(1) Glenn Beck. You can't like him unless you think Rush Limbaugh is too civil and liberal.
(2) Democrats who say they are feminists but defend David Letterman because the teenage girl he joked about isn't "on our team"
(3) Sarah Palin -- not over the Letterman controversy, but because she can't complete a sentence
(4) People who think that I care who won the U.S. Open
(5) People who call Sonia Sotomayor a racist. Oh, the poor opressed white guy. We just don't ever catch a break.
(6) Drivers who don't use turn signals
(7) Congressional Democrats, especially Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- for never being organized on anything, never being united on anything and never having any backbone on anything
And finally, my annoyance of the week:
(8) Righteous ex-smokers (yes, I'm talking to you, President Obama), who want to legislate that we do what they had a choice about doing.
Thanks for reading. If you like this site, tell your friends.
In his press conference today, President Obama declared that he was "appalled and outraged" at violence against protesters in Iran. It was the most direct statement made by the administration to date calling to task the powers that be in Iran. President Obama continued to stop short of directly criticizing the election process or result.
This appears to be par for course for President Obama, whose tendencies on both foreign and domestic issues to date has been to take a measured approach and slowly ramp up rhetoric in response to conditions. We had a glimpse of this in the campaign -- think back to the Jeremiah Wright controversy.
I doubt that his press conference today will appease conservatives who sought much more direct influence from the White House from the get-go. President Obama's measured approach is the polar opposite of former President Bush's. If you are a liberal, he is thoughtful, contemplative and intellectually geared. If you are a conservative, he is wishy-washy, indecisive and lacks courage. PoTAtoes, potTAHtoes.
It's Stopped Getting Worse, but Will it Get Better?
The gains in the stock market has stalled, unemployment is still at a record high and the World Bank just revised its global economic forecast down to a 2.9% contraction in the global economy this year.
It has many thinking -- you call this a recovery?
The problem the markets are experiencing right now is that while we no longer appear on the verge of a global economic meltdown, as we did to many in late Februrary and some of the economic statistics (home sales, retail sales, etc.) have stopped declining, all of the economic indicators have stabilized at a lower level.
It has led many to ask the question -- is this the new norm? Will we be living with 9-10% unemployment, zero growth and hard-to-get credit for generations to come?
I don't think so. The engine that drives long-term economic prospects is productivity growth - and productivity is still growing. The economy is performing under capacity right now -- too many people out of work, too many people working part time, too many people underemployed. But these are transitional, not structural issues. In fact, the history is that recessions often spawn productivity growth as businesses find creative ways to be more efficient out of survival instinct. We certainly saw this in the last 3 recessions. So, rest assured, things WILL get better again.
What may be fundamental changed is credit conditions. The S&P may take years to get back to 1,500 because corporations have realized the risk that massively debt-ridden balance sheets can cause (ask a few casino companies or maybe some banks.) Individuals are saving again because they realize that they can no longer rely on their home value and their 401K always going up. So thrift may be back in, at least for a while. But we grew the economy pretty well in the 1950s and people were relatively a lot more thrifty then. Innovation drives productivity, not spending.
Things That Annoy Me
A new feature -- suggested by my wife -- some short-takes on some things I find very annoying, in the political world and elsewhere. So, here it goes...things that annoy me:
(1) Glenn Beck. You can't like him unless you think Rush Limbaugh is too civil and liberal.
(2) Democrats who say they are feminists but defend David Letterman because the teenage girl he joked about isn't "on our team"
(3) Sarah Palin -- not over the Letterman controversy, but because she can't complete a sentence
(4) People who think that I care who won the U.S. Open
(5) People who call Sonia Sotomayor a racist. Oh, the poor opressed white guy. We just don't ever catch a break.
(6) Drivers who don't use turn signals
(7) Congressional Democrats, especially Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- for never being organized on anything, never being united on anything and never having any backbone on anything
And finally, my annoyance of the week:
(8) Righteous ex-smokers (yes, I'm talking to you, President Obama), who want to legislate that we do what they had a choice about doing.
Thanks for reading. If you like this site, tell your friends.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Deeds Spanks All Comers in VA Primary, Chrysler Sale Cleared, Sotomayor Hearings Set, President Obama's Political Capital
Deeds Smokes McAullife
I'll grade myself on my call yesterday on the Virginia gubernatorial primary: right theory, right order of finish, WAY off on order of magnitude. I pride myself on calling races right and I do feel that this site got it a lot more right than any other major political website, but there is definitely room for improvement.
As of this writing, with 99%+ of precincts reporting, Creigh Deeds pulled in a whopping 50% of the primary vote in the three-way race with Terry McAullife (26%) and Brian Moran (24%) a distant second and third. I believe all of the reasons why I projected a Deeds win held true (that Republican Open Primary voters overwhelmingly voted against McAullife), but in a much bigger way than I could have imagined. I envisioned maybe a 5 point Deeds win -- all of the polls showed the race more or less a dead heat. This just shows the difficulty in polling the result of an open primary, especially a very low turnout primary as this one was.
This sets up what I consider to be a true toss-up general election. Both Virginia and New Jersey appear to be very interesting races...stay tuned.
Chrysler Sale Moves Ahead Less than 24 hours after Justice Ginsberg granted a temporary stay of the Chrysler reorganization plan, the Supreme Court has reached the decision not to grant cert and take up the case. The reorganization will move ahead as planned with combined ownership by the UAW, the Federal Government and Fiat.
This is a good thing for what is left of Chrysler. It has a chance to remake itself. There is a lot of work to do. Chrysler lags badly in innovation, design and quality to its global competitors (Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen and Ford are all miles ahead in all three categories) and it may yet fail, but it has a lifeline and the small-car technology from Fiat to lean into. This expedited bankruptcy also sets the precedent for the much-larger GM to follow a similar process.
Sotomayor Hearings to Begin July 13th
The Senate judiciary committee hearings for Supreme Court-Designee Sonia Sotomayor will begin July 13th. This is earlier than many Senate Republicans had wanted, arguing for hearings no earlier than late August to allow a thorough review of Judge Sotomayor's record. As I previously discussed, this argument is nonesense as we are talking about a twice-Senate confirmed nominee whose record has already been thoroughly reviewed. But it is a normal tactic for the opposition party to play a waiting game and hope something blows up. I would still be very surprised if Sotomayor doesn't pick up 70 votes and sail through her nomination. But you never know.
That the hearings are set to begin smack-dab in the middle of when congressional Democrats had hoped to be debating health care reform will spread the President's capital awfully thin. Let's take a look at home much he still has.
Holding Strong But Still Trending Down
First, for our new readers, let me explain the methodology of the poll aggregation graphs below. Unlike many sites (such as the widely reported realclearpolitics), I do not treat all polls as equal. Polls have different sample sizes and are therefore given weight based on its overall sample size, to create one "super poll". Also, polls have different methodology for treatment of "no opinion". Gallup, for instance, reports "no opinion" responses (their latest poll shows 61% approve, 34% disapprove, 5% "no opinion") whereas Rasmussen does not (their latest poll 58% approve, 41% disapprove, does not add to 100% due to rounding.) Therefore looking at just the approval percentage is not meaningful. I therefore use what I call "approve minus disapprove", that is the percentage of those surveyed who approve minus the percentage that disapprove. This gives a consistent basis for comparing the results over time. If the number is positive, President Obama generally has public approval, if negative he does not. I also show for reference the 7.2% line, the percentage by which the President won the national popular vote in November. This methodology closely replicates the polling aggregation method that I used to correctly project within 0.1% the results of the November election.
The verdict so far this month? More of the same. President Obama continues to enjoy broad approval, but the margin continues to slowly tighten. He is more popular than he was in November -- that is there appear to be McCain voters who approve of the President. But you can see from the trend why the administration is intent on getting things done now -- in politics you either use political capital or lose it.
I also look at the poll breakdowns by polling methodology. As some polls survey all adult Americans, some restrict to registered voters and some attempt to target likely voters, the numbers naturally vary.
As of today, the numbers by polling type are:
Adult Americans: +30%
Registered Voters: +26%
Likely Voters: +17%
It is worth noting that Rasmussen is consistently the only poll tracking Likely Voters. This is worth noting as the Rasmussen results have been all over the map, bouncing between +6% and +17% over just the past 4 days. I find it hard to believe that President Obama's underlying popularity is shifting that much day to day, so I wonder somewhat if Rasmussen is tinkering with the methodology. The +17% number seems more realistic, given that it would be hard to believe that there is a 20%+ spread between registered and likely voters. The Gallup polling last year that looked at both generally showed a 3-5% spread between the two (registered voters tend to be somewhat more liberal than likely voters.)
Month to month, President Obama is still off about 4% in June versus his May numbers, but still over 18% above his November vote totals.
My conclusion: the President still has a lot of capital. People are wary of large deficits and continuing high unemployment but are generally feeling better about the direction of the country and the economy than they were a few months ago (consumer confidence is at its highest level since last September, and right track/wrong track polling has gone from -48% on election day to even today.) Republicans have yet to organize a coherent attack (Rush, Newt and Dick are not helping) or present clear policy alternatives. The honeymoon will end (Republicans will eventually rebuild their party and rally around a coherent message, people will continue to feel economic pain at least for the next several months and the country as a whole is definitely to the right of the President), but for now, the President can afford to press hard.
Whether all this capital translates into being able to do Health Care, Energy Reform AND Immigration Reform in a meaningful way remains to be seen. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush accomplished NONE of those three things in 8 years each in office. President Obama is attempting to do it in one. If he pulls it off, it will be the most significant first year of a President in U.S. history. It should be interesting to watch.
Welcome again if you are a new reader. Please bookmark, visit often and tell your friends.
I'll grade myself on my call yesterday on the Virginia gubernatorial primary: right theory, right order of finish, WAY off on order of magnitude. I pride myself on calling races right and I do feel that this site got it a lot more right than any other major political website, but there is definitely room for improvement.
As of this writing, with 99%+ of precincts reporting, Creigh Deeds pulled in a whopping 50% of the primary vote in the three-way race with Terry McAullife (26%) and Brian Moran (24%) a distant second and third. I believe all of the reasons why I projected a Deeds win held true (that Republican Open Primary voters overwhelmingly voted against McAullife), but in a much bigger way than I could have imagined. I envisioned maybe a 5 point Deeds win -- all of the polls showed the race more or less a dead heat. This just shows the difficulty in polling the result of an open primary, especially a very low turnout primary as this one was.
This sets up what I consider to be a true toss-up general election. Both Virginia and New Jersey appear to be very interesting races...stay tuned.
Chrysler Sale Moves Ahead Less than 24 hours after Justice Ginsberg granted a temporary stay of the Chrysler reorganization plan, the Supreme Court has reached the decision not to grant cert and take up the case. The reorganization will move ahead as planned with combined ownership by the UAW, the Federal Government and Fiat.
This is a good thing for what is left of Chrysler. It has a chance to remake itself. There is a lot of work to do. Chrysler lags badly in innovation, design and quality to its global competitors (Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen and Ford are all miles ahead in all three categories) and it may yet fail, but it has a lifeline and the small-car technology from Fiat to lean into. This expedited bankruptcy also sets the precedent for the much-larger GM to follow a similar process.
Sotomayor Hearings to Begin July 13th
The Senate judiciary committee hearings for Supreme Court-Designee Sonia Sotomayor will begin July 13th. This is earlier than many Senate Republicans had wanted, arguing for hearings no earlier than late August to allow a thorough review of Judge Sotomayor's record. As I previously discussed, this argument is nonesense as we are talking about a twice-Senate confirmed nominee whose record has already been thoroughly reviewed. But it is a normal tactic for the opposition party to play a waiting game and hope something blows up. I would still be very surprised if Sotomayor doesn't pick up 70 votes and sail through her nomination. But you never know.
That the hearings are set to begin smack-dab in the middle of when congressional Democrats had hoped to be debating health care reform will spread the President's capital awfully thin. Let's take a look at home much he still has.
Holding Strong But Still Trending Down
First, for our new readers, let me explain the methodology of the poll aggregation graphs below. Unlike many sites (such as the widely reported realclearpolitics), I do not treat all polls as equal. Polls have different sample sizes and are therefore given weight based on its overall sample size, to create one "super poll". Also, polls have different methodology for treatment of "no opinion". Gallup, for instance, reports "no opinion" responses (their latest poll shows 61% approve, 34% disapprove, 5% "no opinion") whereas Rasmussen does not (their latest poll 58% approve, 41% disapprove, does not add to 100% due to rounding.) Therefore looking at just the approval percentage is not meaningful. I therefore use what I call "approve minus disapprove", that is the percentage of those surveyed who approve minus the percentage that disapprove. This gives a consistent basis for comparing the results over time. If the number is positive, President Obama generally has public approval, if negative he does not. I also show for reference the 7.2% line, the percentage by which the President won the national popular vote in November. This methodology closely replicates the polling aggregation method that I used to correctly project within 0.1% the results of the November election.
The verdict so far this month? More of the same. President Obama continues to enjoy broad approval, but the margin continues to slowly tighten. He is more popular than he was in November -- that is there appear to be McCain voters who approve of the President. But you can see from the trend why the administration is intent on getting things done now -- in politics you either use political capital or lose it.
I also look at the poll breakdowns by polling methodology. As some polls survey all adult Americans, some restrict to registered voters and some attempt to target likely voters, the numbers naturally vary.As of today, the numbers by polling type are:
Adult Americans: +30%
Registered Voters: +26%
Likely Voters: +17%
It is worth noting that Rasmussen is consistently the only poll tracking Likely Voters. This is worth noting as the Rasmussen results have been all over the map, bouncing between +6% and +17% over just the past 4 days. I find it hard to believe that President Obama's underlying popularity is shifting that much day to day, so I wonder somewhat if Rasmussen is tinkering with the methodology. The +17% number seems more realistic, given that it would be hard to believe that there is a 20%+ spread between registered and likely voters. The Gallup polling last year that looked at both generally showed a 3-5% spread between the two (registered voters tend to be somewhat more liberal than likely voters.)
Month to month, President Obama is still off about 4% in June versus his May numbers, but still over 18% above his November vote totals.My conclusion: the President still has a lot of capital. People are wary of large deficits and continuing high unemployment but are generally feeling better about the direction of the country and the economy than they were a few months ago (consumer confidence is at its highest level since last September, and right track/wrong track polling has gone from -48% on election day to even today.) Republicans have yet to organize a coherent attack (Rush, Newt and Dick are not helping) or present clear policy alternatives. The honeymoon will end (Republicans will eventually rebuild their party and rally around a coherent message, people will continue to feel economic pain at least for the next several months and the country as a whole is definitely to the right of the President), but for now, the President can afford to press hard.
Whether all this capital translates into being able to do Health Care, Energy Reform AND Immigration Reform in a meaningful way remains to be seen. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush accomplished NONE of those three things in 8 years each in office. President Obama is attempting to do it in one. If he pulls it off, it will be the most significant first year of a President in U.S. history. It should be interesting to watch.
Welcome again if you are a new reader. Please bookmark, visit often and tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
