Disagreeable
Well-known member
Link below. I'll see if I can find the CQ report and see how they match up. Both are non partisan. My emphasis.
"It is a virtual certainty that Republicans will lose House and Senate seats in the Nov. 7 midterm elections.
The question is whether those losses will be small (single digits in the House, one or two in the Senate), medium (10-14 in the House, three-to-five in the Senate), large (15-20 in the House, six in the Senate, with control shifting in both chambers) or extra large (more than 20 in the House, seven or eight in the Senate).
Today, based on both national polls and looking at individual races, the answer can be said to be fluctuating between medium and large, with the Senate somewhat less likely to turn over than the House. But a Senate switch is still very plausible.
Many factors and issues will be playing into this equation.
With an anticipated Gross Domestic Product growth rate of only 3.2 percent in the second quarter -- following an impressive 5.6 percent rate in the first quarter -- a slowing economy might be a key factor.
In the July 10-12 Associated Press/Ipsos national poll of 1,000 adults, only 38 percent of Americans approved of President Bush's handling of the economy, the fourth month in a row and sixth out of nine that his approval on the economy has been under 40 percent.
His economic rating was the same in a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted June 9-12 among 1,002 adults. Another 56 percent disapproved of his handling of the economy. In March and April, this poll also found Bush's economic rating under 40 percent.
Both of the new polls had error margins of 3.1 points.
Keeping in mind that people were giving Bush terrible ratings on handling the economy even when it was growing at an impressive rate in the first quarter of 2006, one wonders what it will be like with a GDP growth rate of 3.2 percent, as most economists forecast, and below 3 percent in the third quarter, as many fear? Will people take a still dimmer view of Bush's stewardship in office and will it hurt his party even more? Or will they see it as confirmation of what they had already concluded and therefore make little difference at the polls?
Arguably one key ingredient as to whether these losses will be on the small or medium side -- allowing Republicans to keep their majorities -- or large or extra large -- putting Democrats in power in one or both chambers -- will be the extent voters attach ownership of the Iraq war to Bush.
The polls are very clear about public attitudes toward the decision to go to war. In the NBC/WSJ poll, 41 percent agreed with the decision to attack Iraq and 53 percent disagreed. Also, 38 percent said they were more confident about the war reaching a successful conclusion and 53 percent felt less confident.
For much of last fall, the focus was on the decision to invade Iraq, and the use (or misuse) of intelligence to support the decision to invade. This month, an average of 100 Iraqi civilians have been killed each day, hardly a sign of stability or progress. At the same time, the Iraq war's cost to U.S. taxpayers has surpassed $1,000 for every man, woman and child.
It's pretty safe to say that if the election focus is on the decision to go to war, it would certainly boost Democratic chances of getting the large or extra-large gains, and a majority on one or both sides of the Capitol Dome.
But starting last November, with the call by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., for a withdrawal of U.S. troops, the focus shifted from the decision to this question: What do we do now? That is a much less dangerous place for the president and the Republican Party. "What now?" is a jump ball, politically speaking, with no national consensus and neither party seemingly having the upper hand.
When the NBC/WSJ poll gave respondents three options -- to maintain current troop levels, reduce the number of troops without a timetable or reduce with a timetable -- 35 percent supported maintaining current levels, 16 percent were for reducing without a timetable and 38 percent were for withdrawing with a timetable. In other words, people were all over the map.
Support for withdrawing with a timetable dipped slightly from the 41-to-43 percent level in the four previous polls. Maintaining current troop strength was back up to where it was in the winter.
In short, it makes a big difference whether voters are judging based on the decision to invade or whether it is on what course of action should be taken next, with the latter very likely to minimize or at least moderate Democratic gains.
A central part of the problem is that the Democratic Party has few strong spokesmen on national security issues. They tried Murtha, but his political instincts are highly suspect and his credibility is shot with all but the liberal base after his recent appearance on "Meet the Press."
For Democrats, the question should be where is former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., when you need him?
Sign up to receive Charlie's weekly Nationaljournal.com column in your inbox each Tuesday."
http://www.cookpolitical.com/
"It is a virtual certainty that Republicans will lose House and Senate seats in the Nov. 7 midterm elections.
The question is whether those losses will be small (single digits in the House, one or two in the Senate), medium (10-14 in the House, three-to-five in the Senate), large (15-20 in the House, six in the Senate, with control shifting in both chambers) or extra large (more than 20 in the House, seven or eight in the Senate).
Today, based on both national polls and looking at individual races, the answer can be said to be fluctuating between medium and large, with the Senate somewhat less likely to turn over than the House. But a Senate switch is still very plausible.
Many factors and issues will be playing into this equation.
With an anticipated Gross Domestic Product growth rate of only 3.2 percent in the second quarter -- following an impressive 5.6 percent rate in the first quarter -- a slowing economy might be a key factor.
In the July 10-12 Associated Press/Ipsos national poll of 1,000 adults, only 38 percent of Americans approved of President Bush's handling of the economy, the fourth month in a row and sixth out of nine that his approval on the economy has been under 40 percent.
His economic rating was the same in a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted June 9-12 among 1,002 adults. Another 56 percent disapproved of his handling of the economy. In March and April, this poll also found Bush's economic rating under 40 percent.
Both of the new polls had error margins of 3.1 points.
Keeping in mind that people were giving Bush terrible ratings on handling the economy even when it was growing at an impressive rate in the first quarter of 2006, one wonders what it will be like with a GDP growth rate of 3.2 percent, as most economists forecast, and below 3 percent in the third quarter, as many fear? Will people take a still dimmer view of Bush's stewardship in office and will it hurt his party even more? Or will they see it as confirmation of what they had already concluded and therefore make little difference at the polls?
Arguably one key ingredient as to whether these losses will be on the small or medium side -- allowing Republicans to keep their majorities -- or large or extra large -- putting Democrats in power in one or both chambers -- will be the extent voters attach ownership of the Iraq war to Bush.
The polls are very clear about public attitudes toward the decision to go to war. In the NBC/WSJ poll, 41 percent agreed with the decision to attack Iraq and 53 percent disagreed. Also, 38 percent said they were more confident about the war reaching a successful conclusion and 53 percent felt less confident.
For much of last fall, the focus was on the decision to invade Iraq, and the use (or misuse) of intelligence to support the decision to invade. This month, an average of 100 Iraqi civilians have been killed each day, hardly a sign of stability or progress. At the same time, the Iraq war's cost to U.S. taxpayers has surpassed $1,000 for every man, woman and child.
It's pretty safe to say that if the election focus is on the decision to go to war, it would certainly boost Democratic chances of getting the large or extra-large gains, and a majority on one or both sides of the Capitol Dome.
But starting last November, with the call by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., for a withdrawal of U.S. troops, the focus shifted from the decision to this question: What do we do now? That is a much less dangerous place for the president and the Republican Party. "What now?" is a jump ball, politically speaking, with no national consensus and neither party seemingly having the upper hand.
When the NBC/WSJ poll gave respondents three options -- to maintain current troop levels, reduce the number of troops without a timetable or reduce with a timetable -- 35 percent supported maintaining current levels, 16 percent were for reducing without a timetable and 38 percent were for withdrawing with a timetable. In other words, people were all over the map.
Support for withdrawing with a timetable dipped slightly from the 41-to-43 percent level in the four previous polls. Maintaining current troop strength was back up to where it was in the winter.
In short, it makes a big difference whether voters are judging based on the decision to invade or whether it is on what course of action should be taken next, with the latter very likely to minimize or at least moderate Democratic gains.
A central part of the problem is that the Democratic Party has few strong spokesmen on national security issues. They tried Murtha, but his political instincts are highly suspect and his credibility is shot with all but the liberal base after his recent appearance on "Meet the Press."
For Democrats, the question should be where is former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., when you need him?
Sign up to receive Charlie's weekly Nationaljournal.com column in your inbox each Tuesday."
http://www.cookpolitical.com/