This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Please respond to a minimum of one student's mid-term election post. Please choose a student you have NOT responded to yet this term. In your post please use sources to back up your points and cite where your information is from.
posted by M. Aby @ 3:04 AM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
37 Comments:
After reading John T's blog, I agree with what he was saying about how the democrats in order to protect their majority in Congress are going to need to focus more on the economy. It seems as if the American people are more concerned about the economy and getting that turned around, than getting the health care bill passed. I personally don't see enough being done to get the economy moving again and to make it keep moving again. The last thing we need is for the economy to get even worse. No legitimate plan has been brought forth focusing on the economy that is really turning things around. It seems as though Congress is drawing more attention to the health care bill than anything else and staying clear of the economic issues this country is facing. I also agree with what he said about how the Republican party needs to focus on “the current congresses inability to pass legislation on the economy rather than focusing on a health care bill that is overall unpopular” (1). I think this would be a good way for the Republican party to go about to get the votes they need to win seats in the 2010 midterm election. Many Americans are upset about the health care bill and what it incorporates, whether they are Democrat, moderate or Republican. I also agree with what John said that if unemployment is still as high as it is projected to be in November that the Republican party will win more seats than the Democratic party will.
After reading Derek L's blog I agree with the statement he made about Obama not living up to this hype he was getting for becoming President. There is still a lot on his agenda he has not gotten to, although he has a lot of time left in his term to get to these things, I still believe that he may have set himself up for too many things to get done. “His wins in his first year in office included votes for creating a massive economic stimulus package, bailing out the auto industry, allowing the Food and Drug Administration regulate tobacco and confirming Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor” (4). It's a good start but I would still like to see more being done and what it is exactly doing for the economy, like whether it's actually doing anything for the economy.
If President Obama does not get a democratic majority in Congress after the 2010 midterm elections it could put a major setback on his agenda. “Failure to do so could have serious ramifications for President Obama as he tries to look past the health care debate and tackle global warming, ballooning budget deficits and a range of other politically contentious issues” (2). This midterm election could be very defining in whether Obama will end up being perceived as a President who got a lot accomplished or one of false hopes. “The GOP knows that presidents typically lose House and Senate seats during midterm elections, and is banking on that fact to block much of Obama's agenda” (2). The Republican party will need to target voters on issues like the health care bill that will make them want to go out and vote because they are angered by how the Democratic party is handling it. “A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Wednesday indicates that a bare majority of Americans, 51 percent, believe that the Democrats' policies are good for the country, with 46 percent saying that those policies would take the U.S. in the wrong direction” (3). Even though this poll could be true, “independents will be the key to the midterms, and the numbers among independents spell bad news for both parties among that important group” (3). Both the Democratic and Republican party are going to need to focus on the independents for those votes they need in the 2010 midterm elections.
1- John T's Blog
2-http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/06/senate.power.balance/index.html?iref=allsearch
3-http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/23/poll.parties.policy/index.html?iref=allsearch
4-http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=2&docID=news-000003276768&mp=Most_Viewed
I'd like to respond to Jackie's comment. First off, I think your post was well-written and thought out. When I read what you said about people disappoving of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, I was surpised. I've heard very little bad things about him or his party. After a little digging, I found an article that confirmed many of your points. It seems that decreasing approval ratings have become a trend for Obama, who has slipped to a 46 percent approval rating (1). This is four less than last month's count and ten less than October's (1). Health care is where he has fallen the most, standing at 36 percent approval (1). As for the Democrats, 57 percent of the respondents in a recent NY Times poll reported being dissatisfied with the way they handled health care (1). However, it's important to note that 61 percent are dissatisfied with Republicans' performance, suggesting to me that voters are unhappy with both parties. Because of the high turnover in the 2006 midterm elections, I did a little research on Bush's approval ratings then. According to a 2006 article, Bush's approval ratings were then at 33 percent, significantly lower than Obama's current ratings, and a twice as many respondents believed that the economy was getting preogressively worse (2). Among the issues people thought Bush was doing a bad job at were the Iraq War, the economy, and disagreement on issues (2). For the Democrats, it is health care and the economy that will determine the outcome of the midterms. Before the 2006 midterms, 17 percent of those who responded negatively about Bush claimed it was the economy that created their dissatisfaction (2). Circling back to the NY Times poll, it's important to point out that 41 percent approve of how Obama is dealing with the economy. This is an all-time low for Obama, much the same as Bush's ratings were all-time lows then. In the 2006 midterm elections, Democrats took 28 House seats and 5 Senate seats, gaining majorities. Bush took much of the blame for Republicans' losses (3). Are we looking at something similar to this? Honestly, I don't think so. Maybe it's because I live in Minnesota and am surrounded by Democrats, but I don't sense the same frustration that surrounded the 2006 midterms. If there is an election with high turnover, it will be the 2012 election and only if the country's attitude towards Obama and the Democrats continues to fall. Yes, people aren't entirely satisfied with the Health Care Bill, but I don't think we need to scrap it and start over--and I think the public agrees with me. As far as increasing jobs, the economy is growing little by little. By the time the 2010 midterm elections roll around, we could very well see some noticeable progress. All the same, I do believe that Republican's will snatch back some seats, but this will probably be focused around already highly contested areas. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens.
1. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/poll-obamas-ratings-on-health-care-economy-drop-lower/
2. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html
3. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/election.bush/index.html
In response to Kelsey Derby. I enjoyed reading your post on the upcoming midterm elections. In general I agreed with your ideas and predictions for both parties. However, there were a few minor things I had disagreements with. You open your statement by saying that this election will have a huge effect on future government. I have trouble believing that statement. While this election is important for Republicans in some sense, I don’t think government will change drastically at all. The Democrats will still have control of the presidency. Even if Republicans won over a majority in both houses, they would have a tough time cooperating with the Obama administration. In 2006, when Democrats took back control of congress, they still had to deal with a Republican president. This election may slow down government, but it won’t have a significant effect on what it does. You also said that people think that Obama hasn’t done enough in his first year as president. While this may be an opinion of some, I think most people think he has accomplished quite a bit. I think where people disagree with him is where he has invested his political capital. His major proposals of the year were Health care and Afghanistan. Some people may feel these issues are not priorities, especially when there are still so many unemployed.
I agree with many of your solutions to both parties. For the Republican party, it is important that they find common ground and create a strong stance against the Democrats. Right now the Republican political spectrum is so vast, making it hard for people to back the party as a whole. Already, we are seeing conservative Republicans battling moderate Republicans in primaries around the states (1). This is important not only for the midterm elections, but also for 2012 if they are going to put up any kind of fight for president. The Republicans are also going to face problems of losing incumbents in the House. Already fourteen Republicans have announced they will not run in the next election (2). The Democrats have also lost some big names stepping down.
I also agree with what you have to say about the Democrats. Voter turnout will play a large role in the election. Republican voters will for sure turn up to vote. Democrats have been historically more absent at the polls. If the Democrats stress the importance of the election, they should be okay with the turnout. Although Obama is starting to see his momentum slide, I think he is still strong enough to carry the party through the election. It would be wise for him and Congress to enact legislation this year that will help people hurt by the economy. Obama’s big moves for 2009 did a lot for certain groups, but didn’t always affect the people. Health care is a big step for the average person, but people won’t feel the benefits for a few years yet. A big move in 2010 to help out the unemployed would keep people happy with the status quo and keep the Democrats in power for another two years.
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/weekinreview/10herszenhorn.html?ref=politics
2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010403313.html
After reading the post by Matt Ervin, I discovered that I did not agree with him on many of his points. It was his opinion that the upcoming midterm elections wont bring about the kind of political change many believe it will. However, it is my opinion that it will. These elections may not swing Congress to an overwhelming majority for Republicans but I feel like it will be very beneficial to them. Matt touched on the fact that the nation has a majority of Republican governors and I think this is evidence that American support for the Democratic party may not be at the high levels it was at the beginning of 2009 (1). I also don't agree with Matt's statement that Republican wins depend on voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic party but I will humor him on this with a fact. Pollster.com shows an overall decline in Obama's approval rating from 80% before he took office to 48% (2). Based on this and Matt's reasoning, wouldn't this mean the Republicans are going to win a good chunk of congressional seats? I will agree with Matt on the fact that the economy is improving but the state of the economy is a driving factor in the way many American's will vote (3). Obama has spent much of his first year in office trying to get the health care bill passed which has pretty much flopped and has paid little attention or not a substantial amount of attention on the economy (3). Even if Obama successfully passes some sort of expansionary fiscal policy, it could take moths until we actually start to see its effects (3). Who knows what the state of the economy will be when this happens? Also, there's no guarantee that an economic bill will be effective in time for people to notice by November. I also disagree with Matt's comment that the health care bill will probably satisfy most people. If that were the case then why hasn't it been passed yet? If it would satisfy most people then there would little opposition to it. Clearly this isn't the case. Many interest groups are still lobbying lawmakers about their concerns and desires concerning health care legislation (4). Surely this is and indicator that the health care bill isn't praised by all. And finally, I am completely in agreement what Matt in that historic trends show that the opposition party tends to gain seats in Congress during the midterm elections and that this is surely to be a difficult and interesting election (3).
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010602543.html?hpid=topnews
2. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-midterm1-2010jan01,0,453106.story?track=rss\
3. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/overhaul-success-or-not-democrats-brace-for-losses/?scp=2&sq=midterm%20elections&st=cse
4. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-health-congress13-2010jan13,0,4011628.story
I think that Dan makes a very strong argument that the Democrats may lose seats in Congress but not enough to lose their majority. I also made the point that there are 14 Republican candidates who are not running for re-election. This compromises the strength of the Republican party because they will not have any competence; which is said to be the strongest factor in choosing a candidate. (1) I also made a statement about the health care difficulties. President Obama put all his political emphasis on passing a specific heath care bill. This bill did pass, but on its way it lost several key aspects that compromised the outcome. Howard Dean, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, is an advocate for new health care policy and strongly opposes this new bill. He says, “If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill.” (2) This quote is self explanatory. He sees the bill as too much of a compromise from what the original goal was. This is where the Democrats run into major problems. Like Dan says, people get frustrated at the dramatic and excruciating amount of time it took all to make a compromise that some Democrats are not even for. Although this health care issue has been a dark spot on their resume, the Democrats have not been passive with their majority.
I also agree with Dan’s opinion to take credit for the things they have done. The voters hear from the Republicans that the Democrats are not using their majority effectively but the Democrats just need to prove otherwise. As I talked about above and in my actual post, the Democrats are too divided. They need to find a new party unity, like Dan mentions in his post as well.
The Republicans do have a much easier job. They do not have to brag necessarily about what they do right, but what the Democrats do wrong. It is much easier to be the opposition and that is what the two party-system is good for. While the elected party leads, it is the oppositions job to show what they will do differently and point out what the elected are doing wrong. (1) I think Dan’s final statement is also very important. There are many things that could happen in the next few months that could change the outcome of the election. Although I do think that the Democrats will continue to have a majority, I think they will lose some seats as well. I like what Ben talks about in his post; President Obama inherited a trying economic situation. (3) It is difficult to make everything better in only a short amount of time, but the American people demand change quickly. The economy is nothing to make a quick fix on and so this is why the Democrats may see a decrease in power in the Congress due to the upcoming midterm elections.
1) Government in America (text book)
2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601906.html
3) Ben Levine’s blog post
I feel as though the fundamentals of what everyone said about the Midterm elections are very similar. However, I am going to agree with Solveig. I really like what Solveig had to say about how Americans are really moderates, proven by the fact that they constantly switch from one party to another and are never pleased with the doings of one party. I find it particularly humorous that we always seem to blame the party in power if nothing can get done. A recent poll indicated that a bare majority of 51% still believe that the Democrats policies are good for our country (1). This is interesting, because although people express their frustration with the current congressional majority, they still seem to think that their policies are worth waiting for. On that note, I am in absolute agreement with the fact that Democrats have been “plagued” by their inability to pass healthcare legislation and significantly reduce unemployment rates. Although the polls show that people are in agreement with policies, I think that their failure to accomplish the things that they have said they were going to accomplish will be a major hurdle for Democrats. Displeasure with failure of accomplishment is an indicator of the fact that the approval ratings of Mr. Obama have been decreasing. Rep. McCarthy believes that if Obama approval ratings dip below 50% then the GOP has a good chance of taking over the House majority (2).I see the loss of Democratic seats as inevitability, but I think that it will be more difficult for Republicans to win the majority. I think it is safe to say, however, that the Republicans have an excellent opportunity to “revive” their party in Congress with these midterm elections.
Solveig says that people view Obama and his policies as too leftists, and I am in agreement with that. The Republicans need to attack this aspect of the Democratic policies, which I believe they have already been doing a good job at. They have already criticized the “Pelosi Index” (attacking leftist aims) (3) a great deal.
I think, like Solveig, that the Republicans will gain seats in Congress. The question, however, is how many. To ensure the winning of congressional seats, Republicans need to make sure that they are “kicking the Democrats while they’re down” so to speak. They need to point out all of their failures, like Solveig says, in healthcare and the economy. In turn, the Democrats need to stress the fact that they are trying, and slowly but surely making progress on such issues.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/23/poll.parties.policy/index.html?iref=allsearch
(2) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/13/gop-sees-a-path-to-midterm-victory/
(3) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/04/gop-group-targets-vulnerable-dems-with-pelosi-index/
To Katie:
I agreed mostly with what you had to say about the upcoming midterm elections. There most definitely will be challenges facing the Democrats, and I think that you are correct in your prediction that healthcare will be a huge factor in the decision of voters in the midterm. I also see your point in saying that any failure in government right now will be deemed by many Americans as the Democrats fault, even though I think that a partial reason for something like Healthcare being passed in a watered down state, a version that may not work as well, could be attributed to many Republicans unwillingness to go with the Democratic ideas (1). I liked the way you put “supported” by this “evidence” in quotes when you wrote about Democrats who chose not to run for reelection. I think it is exactly as you implied. The reason many Democrats decided not to run for reelection may have nothing to do with what chance they thought they had of re election. There are many, many other reasons for someone to want to step down from a governmental position, and I think to jump to the conclusion of the fact that they thought they could no longer win, is uninformed, and overall a little ridiculous.
When you talked about how Democrats should keep playing by the “Kindergarten” rules, I agreed with you as well. I think that it is most definitely in the Democrats best interest to keep society in mind, however, although the logical conclusion would be that society will then keep the Democrats in mind, it isn’t necessarily going to cut it. Although this is a good strategy for Democrats, I think they will need a lot more than that to keep themselves in office. I think not only do they need to do what you say, and pass healthcare legislation, but they need to go above and beyond to get Democrats to vote, and to get the word out of future plans. I think this is a time when Obama needs to use his pull as the president to inform American citizens of his successes so far, that the economy is looking up, and that he is still a proponent of the same party that lead him to victory in 2008 (2). I also think that young need people need to again “Rock the Vote,” so to speak, and get out to support what the Democrats are doing so Obama can complete his promises within the second half of his term in office.
I think that you are exactly correct on what method Republicans should use as well. Like you said, Americans prefer a clean campaign, and I think that if Republicans are willing to follow that and present the facts, they will have a lot of success in 2010. I think that if the Republicans were to fall short of expectations in the midterm that a lot of it could possibly be accounted to the usage of negative publicity towards the Democrats. Although people do seem to respond to negative advertising, I think that Republicans may be better off of they stayed positive. I also think they would have a better shot at gaining middle of the road voters, because it may lessen some harsh feelings toward conservatives, especially after the Bush Administration (3).
I am also uncertain of how much Republicans will gain in the midterms, and it should be interesting to see. Especially when, as you pointed out, the nation is about 50/50 when it comes to what the president has done so far (4). Overall, it should be a very interesting election, and will have an effect either way on what happens in the years to follow.
1. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-health-congress13-2010jan13,0,4011628.story
2. http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Mixed-Reports-Show-US-Economy-Still-Struggling-81533137.html
3. The book.
4. http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php
In response to Laura, I agree with you that the Republicans are going to gain a majority in at least one of the houses of Congress. I also agree with you that this is due to the Democrats failure to pass a health care bill and the number of retiring incumbents. I think that the fact that the Democrats have been unable to pass the health care bill has left many senators rethinking another term and this may have caused so many to retire. More Democratic congress members could still step down and if they do, it could turn into a traditional midterm round and the Democrats could lose around 20 seats, leaving the House up for grabs (1). I agree with Laura that if the Democrats do not focus more on the economy from now to the election, they will not have much of a chance to hold their majority. However I also think that the Democrats also need to pass something on health care in order to help them, because that way they can say they have done what they promised. Also for the Republicans to gain more seats in Congress I think Laura is right that Republicans need to show the voters that the Democrats have not kept their promises nothing has been passed on healthcare and the economy isn’t getting much better. Also recent polls show that the proportion of Americans who disapprove of his performance jumped from 26% to 42% in 10 months (2). Republicans can use this dissatisfaction to their advantage in order to get more seats in Congress.
I’d also like to respond to Chris Shirriff. I disagree with you that in order for Democrats to maintain their majority, that they should “stop being so bipartisan and just push their own legislation through” (3). I think that by only pushing what they want through ignores the public. A recent news survey shows that 57% of Americans don’t like what they have heard about health reform bills being considered by Congress (4). How can passing a bill that the majority of the country doesn’t agree with, help Democrats to get votes? I don’t think it would help them in November to pass a bill that is so disliked and that completely ignores what the majority of Americans are asking for. I do think it is important for Democrats to pass something on health care before the midterm elections, because they have been promising it for so long. However if they do, as you say, stop being so bipartisan I think they will lose even more seats in Congress than they stand to lose by taking a couple more months to create a health care bill that is liked more not only by the Democrats, but the rest of America.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010403313.html
2. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1952807,00.html
3. Chris Shirriff’s blog
4. http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/191095.asp?from=blog_last3
Sarah M.-
I agree that the Democrats are facing the tough problem of losing their majority in Congress, and that improving the economy should be a top priority of theirs in order to maintain that majority. However, there was one point in your post that I didn’t necessarily agree with. It was about the Democrats being better off this year with plenty of time to prepare. The elections are still ten months away, but I believe that in the grand scheme of things, this is not enough time to pass the significant amount of legislation needed in order to shed better light on the Democratic Party. There is already a conservative Club for Growth that is in favor of repealing healthcare legislation, if it continues to pass through the Democratic Congress members (1). This illustrates how controversial the topic is and therefore, how unlikely to be agreed on within ten months it is. In addition, there have been minor improvements to the economy under President Obama, however, I do not believe that they are sufficient for keeping the Democrats in Congress. I am not suggesting that it will be impossible for the Democrats to pass legislation in the next few months that will gain them support, but it will be a difficult task for sure. The Obama administrations finance reform package has recently been called a "sweeping overhaul” and a "transformation on a scale not seen since...the Great Depression" (2).
I did agree with your argument that the Republicans will have to appeal more to younger people in the next ten months. Though many young people are Democratic and therefore in favor of Obama or Democratic Congress members, there would be enough politically active youth that support Republican candidates to at least encourage a majority of seats in Congress (3). This is a minor strategy that could significantly help the Republicans in the fight to win a majority.
1. http://nytimes.com/2010/01/14/a-pledge-to-repeal-health-care-legislation
2. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/kvh_borosage
3. http://usconservatives.about.com/od/2010midtermelections/ht/How-Conservatives-Can-Win-2010.htm
In response to Ben Levine’s post, I must say I enjoyed reading the post, even though Ben and I don’t always agree on the same issues. I am obliged to agree that the Democrats will face some challenges in this upcoming election. In my own research, I found that, like Ben said, history has a tendency to repeat itself. Since the Democrats are the party in power and Americans are so spoiled for time, I think that a loss in seats is almost inevitable due to the impatience of the public. Although, like Ben said, the Democrats inherited this mess from the Bush Administration, many people do not realize this and/or assume that such drastic messes can be cleaned with one swoop of President Obama’s policy approving hand.
However, I disagree with Ben that the Republicans will have such an easy time gaining seats. I feel that even though the economy isn’t necessarily better in all regards, there is a faction that still supports Obama enough that such conclusions are not guaranteed. The Republicans have not actually provided any real solutions for problems that the Obama administration has been accused of, and I think that most of the public realizes this. Like I have said before, it’s an easy job for the party not in power to criticize that which is, but it’s a difficult task to provide real change (1). If the Republicans do not actually provide real and functional alternatives to Democratic policy, I feel that will lower the damage on the Democrats during the midterm elections.
On a different note, Ben’s advice to the Democrats is sound. By pointing out the mess left in the wake of George Bush, perhaps the public will be a bit more understanding, if not actually vote more for the Democrats. Ben cites Alan I. Abramowitz in his post, and uses his formula for seat changes. This loss will most likely not take away the Democrat’s majority, but it will weaken their standing in the chambers (2). By recognizing issues that the Democrats face, there is hope that losses will not be too great.
If the Democrats recognize their weaknesses and address them, or if the Republicans fail to offer alternatives to Democratic policy when people go to the polls, there may not be as much change as anticipated. However, as it seems at the moment, the Democrats may be in for a difficult time. Although maintaining their majority, losing the 60 vote filibuster number is going to be detrimental to Democratic agenda. Only time will tell for sure what the outcome of this confrontation will be.
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010602543.html?hpid=topnews
2) http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=AIA2009090301
In response to Jackie:
I totally agree with what you had to say. I believe the Democrats have been wasting time and energy on health care plans that will not work and need to compromise in order to get the ball rolling and start helping those with medical needs. Both parties agreed that their primary goal is to have an affordable health care plan that is available to all. However, the bill the Democrats pushed for would cost $234 billion more than if there was no bill (1). This is the exact opposite of what they said they were trying to do, and I believe this kind of action is what will hurt the Democrats in the midterm elections. I also agree with you that there has not been enough focus on the economy and unemployment. There are too many current issues not being taken care of for the Democrats to keep all their seats in the House and Senate. If the Democrats can start to create more jobs and give the public the perception that the trend line is turning around, they may be able to hold on a few more of their seats (2). Any improvement in the economy before or even during the election time can only help Democrat chances, showing they are actually doing something beneficial. I also agree that the public is angry and will show this anger through their votes come election time.
Sources:
1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126058555567888547.html
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126289366012820099.html
To Matt Ervin,
I disagree with your statement that the upcoming midterm elections will not be cause for a severe political upheaval. History tells us that midterm elections are notorious for swinging the Congress towards the other party, and the Democratic majority is likely to not be an exception (4). Eisenhower’s party for example in 1958 lost 47 seats, in a very similar economic decline like ours (4). The increase in unemployment leads me to believe that voters will look more on the things that the Democratic party hasn’t done to change things. When Eisenhower lost the seats it was because unemployment had jumped from 4.3 % to 7.5% (4), with unemployment now hovering around 10% and a slight increase happening over the past year the Democrats have been in office might affect the opinions of some voters (4).
However I do agree that voters haven’t become completely dissatisfied with Democrats. A recent poll indicates that while voters have begun to loss faith with Democrats, that doesn’t meant that they are turning toward Republicans necessarily (2). And as Republicans haven’t made any moves to improve their popularity with voters their is a chance that with some attractive Democratic candidates voters may not complete turn their backs on them (1).
I also agree that health care reform will be a major issue during the campaign. If Democrats can’t get healthcare reform passed they may as well have sign their own death certificates. If they can’t get it passed Republicans may use it as a sign that the Democrats are out of touch with the electorates and claim that Republicans are must more in tune with what the American people want (1). If however the Democrats can get healthcare reform passed I agree that it will be a major “trophy” for the Democrats to wave at the American people especially if it adds jobs. Polls indicate that unemployment is shaping the views of many voters around the country (4), and with history and voter dissatisfaction telling us that the Democrats are in for a tough election (1), the Democrats are going to need all the help they can get.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010602543.html?hpid=topnews
[2] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126279417891718047.html
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010403313.html
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/us/politics/30caucus.html
Kelsey, I found your post to be extremely insightful and interesting to read. However, I disagree with you on one overstatement. To begin, I do not think that the 2010 midterm elections will have “a huge effect on government” and result in a “very large change.” While we both concur that Democrats will lose some seats in both the House and Senate, the biggest change I foresee is that Democrats will lose their 60 votes to block Senate filibusters. Even if this occurs, it is just following the natural waxing and waning of the two major parties during our current political era. Since 1968, neither party has been able to continually dominate all branches of our government (1). This is caused by the increase of party dealignment, party neutrality, and split ticket voting that political scientists have noted in recent years (1). Thus, the electoral results of the 2010 midterm elections will probably be in line with present political trends and not a huge political reversal.
Overall, I found that I agreed with your analysis of potential party strategy. I, too, think that the most important factor in the midterm elections will be the health care bill and people’s reactions to it. Health care has been one of the largest issues this year. According to Arizona Local News, health care reform was the single, most important news story of 2009 (2). Health care reform was also touted by President Obama with his Obama Plan all throughout the presidential election (4). Thus, it is ranked highly on the minds of the American people, and, thus far, the Democrats have yet to pass any bill. If they fail to pass legislation with their Congressional majorities or if the general public has a negative response to the proposed changes, it will significantly deteriorate many of the Democrats chances for reelection. The Republicans will use this as a sign of incapable leadership and failure to follow up on promises. Because of the public’s reliance of a candidate’s image in elections, this will be detrimental to Democrats. However, if the bill is successfully passed and publicly hailed as a success, then Democrats will earn the praises of their constituencies, and their chances at reelection will be drastically increased.
Your ideas about getting people to show up to the polls and vote on Election Day are also extremely relevant. In the 2008 elections, the United States experienced one of its highest voter turnouts in recent history. According to the United States Census Bureau, voter turnout increased by five million votes over the previous presidential election primarily due to significant increases among youth, Latino, and African American voters, all of whom are part of the Democrat’s coalition and previously had notoriously low voter turnout levels (3). President Obama was able to rally and maintain the support of these groups. In order for future Democratic candidates to follow in Obama’s success, they must encourage these people to vote once again. I would like to go one step further than Kelsey and argue that this will be the most important aspect of the 2010 midterm elections. These elections have the power to determine if the increased turnout for these demographic groups can either be construed as a fluke in 2008 or the start of a new trend. This will be left up to the Democrats’ abilities to campaign once again to their supporters. Being a teenager myself, I am most interested in the youth vote. Currently, a majority of youths still support President Obama; however, data shows that they have little enthusiasm for the midterm elections (5). How will these teenagers respond to calls to vote for either party? This is what will go down in the history books about the 2010 elections.
Sources:
1: Edwards, George C. Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2006.
2:http://www.azcentral.com/review/2009/news/articles/2009/12/18/20091218news09decade-CP.html
3: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/013995.html
4: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
5: http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2009/03/report-on-the-obama-generation/
In response to Carissa V:
I agree 100% that one of the biggest obstacles facing the Democrats in the midterm election is the resignation of some of their Democratic senators and representatives. This has signaled that Democrats are anxious and unsure about running in the 2010-midterm elections [2]. However when they don’t run, it makes the Democrats situation worse [2]. The supermajority that the Democrats gained was one of their most useful tools in order for them to pass legislation and push their agenda. Unfortunately they haven’t made much progress, since at this point there is no final healthcare bill that has been passed, and the president has sent more troops to an unpopular war. The stimulus package that was promised to create new jobs and take the United States out of a recession has been working slowly to say the least, as the unemployment rate has stayed hovering around ten percent [1]. Again, I agree with Carissa that if the Democrats fail to pass the healthcare reform bill they will take a serious hit in the midterm elections, because the population will see that even with a supermajority, the party is divided and can’t agree within itself about what is important.
I am more skeptical however then Carissa about potential republican gains. There is still a lot of time until the midterm elections, and although the party in power tends to give up seats, there are several factors that could turn the tide back to the Democrats favor. For example, if the economy suddenly turns back around, the republicans loose one of their main arguments against the democrats [2]. I personally think that its really too early to tell if the Republicans will be able to make significant gains. I too would agree that if they do want to gain seats however, the republicans need to create a strong base and advertise their objectives. One of their potential problems is that right now they’re only advertising what their against, not what they’d actually do once in office [2]. Currently they’re still seen as the unpopular party that created many problems for the American people, and in order for the republicans to regain some seats in both the House and Senate they need to change that image [2]. Once they put their unattractive image behind them, and are seen as a new party for the future, I think that the republican party can re-gain power in Washington.
[1]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/13/ST2009021302017.html
[2]. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1952807,00.html
I am responding to Ben's blog post. I don't think the democrats will lose seats because of the economic situation. People should be able to realize that the current economic problems are not the Obama administration's fault and just because he inherited it does not mean that it is that easy to fix. The administration does not control the economy, for the most part, the Federal reserve does. Obama made many promises during his campaign but he also has four years to complete them-and maybe another four. It has been one year. With all the damage that the previous administration left, I think it is hardly fair to expect him to fix all of it in a sole year. I agree that the party in power usually loses seats after they come into power in the government. It is unrealistic to believe that the democrats will keep all of their seats in congress and in the presidency. But just because of a few promises-not yet fulfilled- I don't think people will complete alter their thinking and go for a huge change. What with the Health care debate still well underway Congress has been busy trying to keep his promises and I think their effort is seen by the public. This bill will help many people and has one lots over to continue their support for the democratic party.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/obama-to-house-democrats-buck-up/?scp=2&sq=midterm%20elections&st=cse
In response to Kayla,
I would have to agree that voter satisfaction is one of the most significant obstacles the Democratic party is facing in reelection (3). I think she brings up a really important point: the fact that the Democrats keep adding hidden provisions and back doors to the health care legislation to please everyone certainly does not look good to the voters. The American people want a party in power that can get things done and move legislation through Congress without the legislation becoming broken down and useless in the process. Kayla also brings up another point with the fact that most of the American voters today lean towards moderate views. These moderate voters view the healthcare legislation that has absolutely no support from Republican Congress members and question its validity. If no members of the opposing party were able to strike even a slight compromise, is the health care bill too far liberal and ineffective (1)?
Another issue facing Democrats is the high unemployment rates the country has seen over the past year (2). Since Democrats stress some of their most important party values to be combating unemployment and assisting every citizen of America, this reflects very poorly on their party morale. It makes the voters question where all of their tax dollars are going if they are not being put into effect policies that translate into jobs. It also brings into question the welfare system, and if taxes will rise to cover increasing welfare expenses as the unemployment rate rises.
In favor of the Republicans, I also have to agree with Kayla that the fact every Republican has shown opposition to the healthcare bill and put up a united front has a far higher appeal than the torn and divided Democrats (4). This displays that not only can Republicans agree on an issue but they can cooperative together to get things done, in this case blocking potentially damaging legislation. The Democrats are the ones that end up looking disorganized and unable to get things done.
1.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/overhaul-success-or-not-democrats-brace-for-losses/?pagemode=print
2.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/06/democrat-senators-governors-election-obama
3.
http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Democrats+struggle+to+hold+critical+60-seat+Senate+majority
4.
Kayla’s Blog
For no apparent reason I decided to respond to Courtney’s blog post. She is my math buddy. I will talk to her more about her blog in person tomorrow.
Anyways, I agree with her blog post. I think I am safe to say that everyone in this blog agrees that the Democratic Party is in a dangerous position. We all know that history is working against them. Slate.com states, “Since the governing party almost always loses seats in off-year races, the president is said merely to have fallen prey to the ineluctable tides of history.” (1) Moreover, Gallup.com states, “It is well-documented that the president's party is usually vulnerable to losing congressional seats in midterm elections, though there have been exceptions such as in the 1998 and 2002 elections.” (3) I agree with a statement by Courtney saying, “Since the Presidency is Democratic, and things aren’t going so hot, people may want change.” Yes, people in our country are very impatient. When things are awful, it is very easy to blame the federal government, especially the president. I mentioned this in my previous blog. As of December 6, 2009, “Obama’s DISAPPROVAL rating is 48.3%, his APPROVAL rating is 47.8%.” (2) Since nothing significant has happened, many people will question Obama and the promises he made during his campaign. Republicans are going to be able to utilize this to their advantage… (Retrospective voting) When writing my initial blog, I came across information that some Democratic politicians are retiring. I did not look into this and I am happy that Courtney educated me on the topic. With this departure of Democrats, the Republicans will have an open door to gain seats. It is important for them to capitalize on this.
I agree with Courtney’s idea of what the Democrats need to do to remain the supremacy in Congress. She mentioned, “Even though the political landscape under the Democrat majority seems not very bright right now, they need to remind their constituents that they are working hard to complete legislation on healthcare and still trying to rebuild the economy.” It is important to keep the public’s support that they had in 2008. They need to reaffirm that the American public will benefit from their plans. I disagree with Courtney’s statement of the Democrats attacking the Republican platform. I believe that this is unnecessary. If the Democrats were to attack the Republican Platform, I think it will only backfire and hurt them. They will look weak and not confident. I gave my opinions on what The Democratic Party needs to do to remain power in Congress in my previous blog.
I also agree with Courtney that it is best for the Republican Party to attack the Democratic Party. They need to expose their weaknesses. There has not been a significant advance in healthcare, the economy, climate change, or immigration. Courtney goes on to state, “It would also be wise of the Republicans to confront the public about the lack of decision making and actual action taken under the Democratic majority. Moreover, I think I think it best for the GOP to make sure people vote. Many people may go to the polls uneducated that the Democratic Party has not made significant changes. It may hurt them if only die-hard Republicans vote. Gallup.com states, “The 2010 election cycle begins in a political climate that is shaping up to be not as favorable to the Democratic Party as the 2006 and 2008 elections were. Having capitalized on broad public discontent with the course of the nation in general and the Republican Party in particular to win control of the White House and both houses of Congress.” (3) In addition, I think the Democratic Party will have an advantage if they show the public that they are helping the people in Haiti. It would be sad if they just gave aid on behalf of politics but it could greatly encourage people to support the Democratic Party. Courtney and I had very similar blog posts. We are excited to see what will happen. Both us believe that it will be closer than most people expect.
Citations:
1. http://www.slate.com/id/2153281/
2. http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/17869
3. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124076/political-climate-2010-not-favorable-democrats.aspx
This comment has been removed by the author.
That last comment got messed up.
... Anyways,
Ms. Aby,
I no longer need to send my blogs to you via email. I figured it out.
I agree with Lauren that a lot of people are angry at Congress. I think a major sign of this is the Massachusetts race to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. The Republican Scott Brown is even in the polls with Martha Coakly. Honestly when is the last time Massachusetts was red? I think this shows a lot of anger with Congress and the job they have been doing [1,2]. This should have been an easy election for them. I have to disagree with her about the president being blamed for the past year. I feel like on the campaign trial he had made a lot of promises (and yes I know you can't get everything done in one year) but what he has tried to do isn't exactly what he said. "he promised that the oceans would stop rising but delivered a non-binding something-or-other in Copenhagen". [3]. The President had said he was, "absolutely certain that generations from no, we will be ale to look back and tell our children...this was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation". [3]. With the split along party lines I don't believe this is really a bipartisan effort. I think both parties need to try to come together. Regardless of the side the legislations on, they need to do what is best for the country. One side can't fix the whole country. While the Republicans have good reason to avoid health care (or any other topic), they don't get to advocate for any amendments that would really be taken seriously. I also believe the Democrats need a major shift in attention to the economy and job creation if they want to boost their chances of keeping seats. Most say were are recovering, but people in Detroit or Denver have seen no changes since July [4]. Unemployment is at 10% and I believe that needs to start to recover for the Democrats to have a better chances of keeping seats.
[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704500104574650692333660478.html
[2] http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517891
[3] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTJlMDM2ZmIzMDIwN2EwNGY0M2I0Mjc5NTNhZTA3YjI=
[4] http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2010/01/06/main-street-doesn’t-share-dc-wall-street-optimism-on-economy/
Response to Solveig:
I agree with most of the points that Solveig made in her post on this topic. It is very likely that the Democrats will face a large loss, based on past election trends (2). I find it interesting however, that each party is claiming they face huge odds against them- especially the Republicans (1). Until recently, many of them expressed that they had little chances of overcoming the Democratic majority- according to one article (1) where other sources claim an easy win for the Republicans (2). This makes me think that the party wants to play it safe, because a loss for them would frankly be really embarrassing. It is typical American politics; going the safe route instead of taking a chance.
I thought that Solveig had a great insight when she said that it would take a large Democratic success- like popularizing the healthcare bill or vast economic improvement- to have a Democratic majority after November (3). Americans are impatient, and they will need substantial evidence in their faces when they go to the polls if the Democrats want success.
Although the results of this election will be interesting, it won’t be overly impactful- as the party that controls the White House has faced a loss of seats in nearly all elections since the 1800s (2). My biggest fear is that a Republican majority in Congress will result in less bipartisanship and in more stagnation. I also agree with Solveig that this trend shows the wishy-washy-ness of Americans (3).
1. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/a-republican-tidal-wave-in-201.html?wprss=44
2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/17/republicans-eye-democratic-leaders-midterm-elections/
3. Solveig’s Post
First off I would like to respond to Ali’s post. I strongly agree with her stance on what the Democrats need to do in order to prevent the Republicans from gaining seats. A lot of people are claiming that the Democrats have not gotten a lot accomplished, and the Democrats really need something they can point to that shows they are serving America’s best interests. This health care bill would be a step in the right direction, although many of the more progressive Democrats are disappointed that it does not include a public option (1). If this health care bill does pass (and I think it will) the Democrats really need to move on to the next topic because Obama’s administration has come under fire recently for putting too much emphasis on the issue (1). With such a hotly contested debate, the Democrat’s political situation needs to die down a little bit and choose an issue that won’t be so fiercely opposed. I think Americans are really getting tired of hearing about health care, and the longer this debate rages on the less chance the bill has of passing and the more negatively people will view the Democrats.
I would also like to respond to Kayla’s post. She mentions that the Democrats have a high number of congressmen retiring in the next election. I would like to point out that the Republicans also have a large number of retirements (2), enough that it could possibly offset any retirements from the Democrats. I also find it very unlikely that there will be such a large swing that the Republicans have a double digit majority. The last time there was a swing anywhere close to that magnitude was in 2006, when many Americans were angered over the Bush administration. I just don’t see that sort of frustration over the current government. I think the public is still interested in seeing what more the Democrats can accomplish, and with signs the recession is letting up a little bodes very well for the Democrats. With less than then months until the elections, I think something major would have to happen in order for such a swing to occur.
(1) http://www.cnbc.com/id/34804315
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010403313.html
Smarba Tnarg (aka Grant) said something very interesting in his post that made me look twice. He made the point that Democrats lose more than Republicans. He said that “a Republican president is elected without a great and ambitious mandate for change… A Democratic president is elected because things aren’t as good as we want them to be, and we elect them to bring change for the country.” Though I had never considered this before, I agree with Grant and think that he’s right! That is the whole sense of conservatism; to conserve what has been established. Liberals want to “liberate” these practices. I can’t believe this just occurred to me right now.
The President is hoping that once health-care legislation is passed, the Democrats will gain favor in the eyes of the American people (2). “That’s why I’ll be out there waging a great campaign from one end of the country to the other, telling Americans, with insurance or without insurance, what they stand to gain, about the arsenal of consumer protection, about the long-awaited stability that they’re going to begin to experience,” Mr. Obama said. “And I’m going to tell them that I am proud we are putting the future of America before the politics of the moment, the next generation before the next election…And that, after all, is what we were sent up here to do, standing up for the American people against the special interests, solve problems that we’ve been talking about for decades, make their lives a little bit better, make tough choices, sometimes when they’re unpopular,” he said. “And that’s something that every one of you who support this bill can be proud to campaign on in November.” (2) I also feel that if health-care legislation is successful, the Democrats will make huge gains. However, in the mid-term elections, I agree with Grant in that the Democrats will inevitably lose seats, but not the majority.
So, because President Obama is a Democratic president, he has promised to try to get many things accomplished. If these things don’t happen quick enough, the American people will, as Grant says, either vote GOP or stay home. With the economy not improving fast enough to pacify Americans, Republicans feel that they have a real chance of taking back some seats, even the majority (1). However, they should bear in mind that although Congressional Democrats have a dismal 36% approval rating, the Republicans are even worse off with 29% (1). Best not count your chickens before they hatch.
(1)http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/13/gop-sees-a-path-to-midterm-victory/
(2)http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/obama-seeks-to-reassure-house-democrats/
In response to one Matthew E, I found your post quite peculiar. You decided to take a countering stance to your sources. When I realized that you were, in fact, disagreeing with the articles you cited, I was intrigued and decided to take a closer look at what you had to say. In addition, it was one of the shortest I could find. That was also, admittedly, a draw for me.
The main reason you gave for a minimal Republican gain was that people are, by and large, satisfied with the Democratic Party and will not feet the need to vote Republican in November [1]. But historically, the party of the newly elected president is almost sure to lose seats, even when things aren’t going all that badly [3]. In 1994, Bill Clinton found himself in a similar situation to Obama’s. He was trying to push a big healthcare bill through, as is Obama. But despite palatable approval ratings, the Democrats suffered a large blow in the ’94 elections, and healthcare had to be pushed back [4].
However, I believe you might have hit something with the economy. It seems to me that the American people are still relatively on board with the way the Democrats are handling the economy. The economy proved to be the deciding issue in the election of 2008, and who know? It may well prove to a major issue in 2010 as well. Also, the actual passage of a healthcare bill may yield benefits for the Democrats come Election Day [2].
On a separate note, you ought to hit the spell-check button next time, as some of your typographical errors were a tad distracting from the point you were trying to make, even when the point was a quality one.
Sources:
1) Matt E’s post
2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010602543.html?hpid=topnews
3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010403313.html
4) http://archive.fairvote.org/reports/1995/chp3/gans.html
I disagree with Grant on the reason that Democrats may lose seats. In his post he attributes the losses to unfulfilled campaign promises. However, I believe that the economy will be the major factor in voter’s decisions(3). Americans have continually cited the economy as the most important factor in their political calculations (only terrorism passed the economy for a brief time after September 11 and the wars passed it in 2007) and it is only growing in importance (3). If the economy doesn’t improve it looks like the Democrats will lose some seats, especially in the districts where the incumbents will not be seeking re-election. The Democrats really need the economy to improve and quickly (4). However, despite Obama’s optimistic outlook on the economy, economists are saying that the economy probably will improve this year but not enough to alter the public’s perception of the fragile economy (2,4). Financial crises often have slower recoveries because not only do corporations need to get back on their feet but also, consumers need to trust the corporations enough to invest in them and spend money so the economy finally becomes revitalized (2). Unfortunately, for the Democrats there is not enough time for the economy to improve and then have them point to it and say “Look! This is what we did! Vote for us again!”
I also disagree with his framing of the GOP. The Republicans are going through a bit of a crisis when it comes to party unity and giving a solid message to the voters may prove to be a big problem. There is a large faction of the Republican Party that is significantly farther right than the rest of the party (1). The Republicans need to figure out what they want their party to look like and they need to decide quickly. Even within states Republicans are having major battles (1) . In Florida, for example, there are two rising leaders for the state party and they are creating a large amount of animosity within the party(1) . Perhaps, the division within the party will be enough of a push for the Democrats to continue holding on to their seats.
(1)http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/01/theres_been_enough_bipartisan.html
(2)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704363504575002700724430016.html
(3) http://www.gallup.com/poll/124787/Decade-Review-Four-Key-Trends.aspx
(4) http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76209-obama-tells-dems-that-economy-healthcare-will-help-in-midterms
I agree with Lauren about how the upcoming midterm elections results will turn out. Her idea that the election will be a more tell tale sign of Congress approval than President approval seemed fairly accurate to me. A recent look at how the Democrats and Republicans are responding to the media attention they're getting reinforces Lauren's point.
There's a lot of talk from Republicans about how Democrats are running for the hills because of the tough political landscape ahead of them (1). This shows exactly the image and message the Republicans wish to portray to the media, and political journalists seem willing to comply (1). However, according to many analysts, this media theme is not accurate. While Republicans attack the large number of Democratic potential retirees, their own Republican retirement numbers are actually higher than those of the Democrats in the House, Senate, and among the governors (1).
Special interest is also now being payed to Obama's approval ratings and how they will affect or be affected by the results of the midterm elections. A few new polls have showed his ratings below fifty percent for the first time since he was inaugurated (2). Recent history shows that president support reflects greatly on midterm party election support (2). Unemployment has hit the service workers part of the country strongly, even though the economy is slowly recovering (2). This red flag plus the lingering housing crisis have hurt local economies, and may affect Obama's ratings in a negative way. Opponents blame Obama for expanding the size of government while some in his own party accuse him of not pushing hard enough to get his agenda through (3). Republicans are banking on voter opposition to the health care reform bill to continue through the next year, helping them in the midterm elections (3). However, as the director of Public Policy Polling states, "midterm elections are likely to be brutal for the Democrats, but it won't be solely a result of Mr. Obama's approval ratings" (3). So, as Lauren said, I believe the midterm elections, even if the party in the majority changes, will not be too negative a reflection of Obama.
I thought Lauren's strategizing ideas for both the Democrats and Republicans were ways that could benefit each party's race for seats. The large number of seats available will provide America with a hotly contested race between the two major parties in the upcoming months.
(1) http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021783.php
(2) http://patchworknation.csmonitor.com/csmstaff/2009/1125/what-obama%E2%80%99s-approval-ratings-could-mean-for-midterm-elections/
(3) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/30/obamas-approval-ratings-fall-as-first-year-deals-t/
I agree with Dan L. that the midterm elections can show how little patients the American People have before they expect our government to put out results. I disagree however that in 2006 people started to disagree with Bush. There was many more things to it than just people being tired of the Bush Administration. You had the Iraq war that seemed endless, huge budget deficits, Atty. General Gonzalez and his illegal firing of Federal Agents. There were many different issues. This year I feel is different than any other midterm because President Obama was swept in pretty much by a cult following and the belief that he could change everything that was wrong in Washington today. He promised the moon to so many different people and on a scale of 1 to 10 of how much he promised, he promised an 11. People are starting to realize now that he isn’t the savior, but just another politician and many americans are peeved. Barack Obama has a chance to be a great president, he is a great guy, and a good politician but you cant promise the moon to so many people and not follow through with it while your in the oval office. Midterms have always acted as a way to rate the president and congress but the thing is, is that Barack Obama has a 50% approval rating where as congress has a 29% approval rating. Barack Obama isn’t the reason why there could be a landslide in this years midterms, its mostly congress and there inability to act when needed and help the economy. Yes the midterms are in early indication of the mood against the Obama administration but we’re voting for congress not the oval office.
1http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76209-obama-tells-dems-that-economy-healthcare-will-help-in-midterms
2http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76209-obama-tells-dems-that-economy-healthcare-will-help-in-midterms
3 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/01/theres_been_enough_bipartisan.html
Allie –
Your fact about Republican incumbent retirements this year is correct: there are actually more Republicans retiring this year than Democrats [1]. However, the media have been focusing more on the Democratic retirements and the effects it will have on this upcoming midterm election than the Republican retirements and its effects. This is probably due to the fact that the Democrats are the incumbent majority party – it is easier to find fault with the current leader than to find fault with the contenders. I don’t really agree that the Republicans should try to get some Democrats to “crack” into going into retirement. Although I think these retirements were influenced by the political climate, I don’t think that was the be-all, end-all for every decision. Wednesday, January 7th, 2010, three Democrats announced that they would retire: Senator Chris Dodd, age 65; Senator Byron Dorgan, age 67; and Governor Bill Ritter, age 53 [2]. Of these three men, the average age of retirement is 61.66667 years of age [2]. Therefore, the retirement of these men is not all that surprising. Instead of focusing on getting Democrats to retire, Republicans need to concentrate on keeping the remaining Republican incumbents committed to staying in Congress.
I also agree that there will probably be a fair number of new faces in Congress after this midterm election. To say that “…random people from the phonebook…” will be elected to Congress is an extreme that I think is totally off the mark [3]. It would not surprise me to see new faces in Congress but I do not think that the nation is as desperate as you perceive it to be. The economic climate is not nearly as bad as it was when the radical changes were made back during the Great Depression. In fact, according to The New York Times, “…a consensus had developed among analysts across a wide range of views that the stimulus package, as messy as it is, [is] working” [4]. Typically, major political change is seen when there is major economic crisis or other means of a crisis [5]. Although we started out with a fairly major economic crisis a year ago, the changes that were made were successful enough, in my opinion, to lessen the need for radical political changes. People will always be “dissatisfied” with the government because it is far easier to vocalize what isn’t working than to vocalize what is. However, on the whole, 48% of the nation approves of President Obama’s work while 44.9% disapprove [6]. For a president who only has one year under his belt and was handed a nation full of problems, I’d say President Obama has done extraordinarily well.
1. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/republican-retirements-mount-i.html?hpid=news-col-blog
2. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/With_US_mid-term_elections_fast_approaching,_three_prominent_Democrats_announce_retirement
3. Allie Kalkman’s previous post
4. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html
5. Our book.
6. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
I am responding to Peter’s post because he responded to mine and I thought it’d be a nice gesture. I really agree with him on a lot of aspects of the mid-term elections, if not all of it. I agree with what he said regarding Mr. Obama. People do need to realize he is “only human” and he is not able to fix the economic crisis in one year alone. Americans expected a lot more out of him because they looked at him more as a savior than as a president. However, I think I would put a little more of the blame on him for that than Peter would. I think he played the role of savior very well and sold it to the American people in his campaign with the HOPE posters and CHANGE motto. I’m not saying any of this is bad at all – obviously, it worked. He had an unbelievable campaign. But, he did make people believe him when he said he’d bring change and I have yet to see it. To his credit, often times I heard him talk about the challenges that lay ahead during his campaign but I still think he hyped up what he could accomplish too much. With that being said, people need to realize that it will take time to fix our nation’s problems.
One thing Peter mentioned in his response to mine was that he thought I figured it’d be easy for the Republicans to win a lot of seats. I went back and read my original post and saw I wasn’t as clear on this point as I wanted to be. I do not think it’s going to be easy for the Republicans. It’s a tough election for both parties especially in a time when party loyalty is at its lowest point. The Republicans have one major problem, George W. Bush. He is going to be attached to the party until a strong candidate and leader emerges, which I don’t think has happened yet. Certainly McCain and Palin were not the leaders to give the Republicans a new image and because of that it is going to be hard for them. The party that is in office during economic crises are often blamed for it in its entirety (and same goes for when an economic boom happens) and because the Republicans were in office they are still blamed for much of the collapse. I once again think this poses a barrier for them to gain many seats in the House or Senate.
Also, I think a key for Democrats is to hit hard that they need more time on the healthcare bill. They need more numbers and time. Somehow they need to ignite those who came out and voted in huge numbers for the presidential election. As Aby has said in class, the more people who vote the more Democrats win so that is definitely key.(1)
1- Teacher Aby
In response to Kayla’s post.
Kayla,
I agree with your point that Democrats will have difficulties trying to maintain their current majority. The Democrat’s inability to pass healthcare legislation in a timely fashion is a key part of the Republican’s “ammo” to fire at Democratic incumbents. Even with the majority, Democrats found it difficult to pass legislation. With every seat lost on the Democratic side, it will become even trickier for President Obama to pass legislation in the future (1).
However, I do not agree with your belief that Republicans will gain the majority by a landslide. Democrat congressmen are not the only ones retiring, about half a dozen Republican senators as well as a dozen Republican House members have announced their retirement from Congress (2). The Republican Party will be defending seats in the Senate in New Hampshire, Ohio and Missouri (1). I do believe that the Republicans have a leg up on the Democrats, but they are not completely out of luck. At this point, Republicans have a more motivated constituency and a greater chance of winning independent voters than in the past two elections, when compared to the Democrats (2).
Kayla, I also agree with your statement that the Democrats have the time to get their act together, and change the way that things are going for them. About a month ago, David Axelrod, a senior advisor to President Obama made a statement saying, “There’s not an election tomorrow. There’s not an election next week. There’s not an election for eleven months. The mistake that this town often makes is behaving as if things are static and acting as if the conditions that pertain today are going to describe the conditions 11 months from today. Things can change for the better and worse” (1). Within these next months, all members of Congress will have to be thinking about the up coming election, and make their decisions with it in mind.
Work Cited
1. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/for-obama-a-dispiriting-reality/
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010602543.html
In response, to Laura, I agree that one thing that needs to be considered is that the election is still months away. Obama will almost be entering his third year of being president before the election happens, that is still a lot of time for things to happen. The economy is on a steady line of recovery and if people are happy with how the country is when the election rolls around then they are more likely to support the democrats that have been running the country. A lot of the fear around the 2010 election is that it will be a repeat of what happened to the democrats in the 1994 election, but Nancy Cohen of the LA Times contends that this will not be the case. Cohen describes that the reason that the 1994 swing happened was because of the rise of the Christian right and the emergence of the GOP bastion in the south. Now those groups are the Republican Party. Commentators need to settle down and realize that many democratic supporters have not been given a positive reason to start supporting the Republicans. (1) Solveig talks about Democrats needing to remain strong in their strongholds, and I as well think this is very important. About half of the media coverage has been revolved around the Massachusetts senate race for Ted Kennedy’s former seat (2). I think that people don’t realize that there are also multiple Republicans that are stepping down as well. And while this race will be close because of political turmoil, for the most part people haven’t been given a popular alternative with the Republicans. (3)
(1) http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-cohen17-2010jan17,0,5650998.story
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/16/AR2010011600703.html
(3) http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/midterms
In response to Laura:
For the majority of Laura’s argument, I completely agree with her especially in the fact that the healthcare reform bill and the economy are vital for the Democrats to get passed and fix. These are both promises that were made by President Obama during his campaign and near the beginning of his term so if they are not able to change these things the outlook is bleak for Democrats that want to reenter Congress and also promised their constituents these things. I also agree that the Republicans also need to keep pushing the constituents under Democrats of their failures or promises that were not kept. If the people voting for them see that the Democrats are not keeping up with what the public wants they will try to go in a new direction whether that is with a Republican or a fairly new and unheard of politician. The Republicans really are doing their research when it comes to this election by looking at the popularity rates of the Democrats who hold office and going after many that have plunging rates, even those who have held seats by Democrats for an extensive amount of time. (1) This is a great strategy for the Republicans.
There is however, another side to this story. While the media has kept their focus on the retiring Democrats making it appear as though history will repeat itself yet again and the majority party will lose seats but this may not be true in this election. If you look at the amount of Republicans in Congress who are retiring you will see that the race may be more equal than expected. As of now the House Democratic retirements has gone up to eleven however the Republicans is at 14 in the House. (2) That number gives a much larger percentage of Republicans who are retiring which makes the future of Congress that much more unsure. I think the Republicans are not promised any seats at all and neither are the Democrats. It seems as though only time will tell in this election and we will have to wait to see what is accomplished by the time of midterm elections.
One final factor to consider in the midterm election is who will be going out to vote. Midterm elections are known to have even lower turnout rates than the presidential election and the far right Republicans are definitely being pushed to vote but the numbers in which people vote and what areas are mobilized to vote will be key in this election.(3)
1. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/17/republicans-eye-democratic-leaders-midterm-elections/
2. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/14/arizona-republican-announces-retirement-from-congress/
3. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/06/senate.power.balance/index.html?iref=allsearch
I would like to respond to Chris's blog. Generally I like to disagree with him for fun, but I can't seem to find a point where this is true. I believe that it would be near impossible for the Democrats to gain seats in the midterm election. Empirically, the party who is in control of Congress and the Presidency will generally lose seats in the elections (1). This is generally due to lost political capital and lower approval rates then when the majority leaders gained power. Looking at the trend, we see that the Democrats definitely have spread themselves out over numerous issues, specifically health care, and the American public is lower their approval ratings for the Democrats. However, the approval ratings aren't shown either, so overall I agree with Chris that the Republicans won't be able to grab enough votes to take over Congress because they are split party-wise and therefore decentralized in tackling issues such as the economy and health care just as much as the Democrats.
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/06/democrat-senators-governors-election-obama
In response to Matt Ervin’s post:
While I agree that the Republicans are far from being able to create a political upheaval in the upcoming elections, I would say they could win enough seats to significantly alter the political scene in Congress. These congressional elections after a new President’s inauguration have something in common: the president’s popularity is traditionally a good indicator of his corresponding party’s prospects. President Obama’s current approval ratings are decent, but they represent a serious decline from his high popularity just a year ago (1). The economy is arguably better, but health care reform has had problems that have irked more than just “avid conservatives (2),” and the drama associated with it may hurt the Democrats as much as the results of a successful bill could benefit them. There are a large amount of retiring Republican incumbents, as you noted, and the Republicans, as well as the Democrats, will have to fight very hard for every seat they get.
1. “Obama Has a Climb Ahead in His Second Year,” by Peter Nicholas and Christi Parsons. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-obama-anniversary19-2010jan19,0,6205298.story)
2. “In Health Talks, President Is Hands-Off No More,” by Sheryl Stolberg and David Herszenhorn. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/health/policy/16health.html)
I agree with Courtney's post, about how important these elections are for both parties. I also agree that things do not look good for the Democrats. They will more than likely lose the majority they have in congress. I disagree that the Republicans have any chance of gaining the majority in this election though. I think they have too much ground to make up in one election. The democrats still have popularity in the public. Obama, while he has not done much, has been making progress on a couple of fronts, namely, healthcare and climate change. I think he has done enough to restore confidence in the Democratic Party for the voters. While the retirements and vacancies may spell trouble for the Democrats, I don't think they will make a huge difference, as the Republicans have more people leaving (1). I do believe that these elections are important, however, I do not think they will change much of anything.
(1) http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/06/why-so-many-democrats-headed-for-the-exits/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home