Mediaboss Marketing

President Obama is a drag on Democrats this year, any way you slice it. His disapproval rating has been hoveringaround60 percent in the key Senate states, that hasn't gotten better, and 55 percent of registered voters rate his presidency as a "failure."The history ofan unpopular president's party in midterm election is even gloomier.

But tucked inside Tuesday's new Washington Post-ABC News poll is a semi-encouraging figure for Democrats: Among the clearmajority of Americans who disapprove of Obama (54 percent), a little bit less than three-quarters of them say they are voting Republican in the coming election -- just 72 percent.

I say "just" 72 percent, because that's in contrast to the 85 percent of Obama approvers who say they will vote for Democrats. In other words, opposing Obama is not an analogue for voting Republican in the upcoming election. And that's why Democratsstill have at least a fighting chance to keep the Senate (current generic ballot: 46 percent for Democrats, 44 percent for Republicans).

It's not really all thatsurprising. After all, Democrats in many key races are running well ahead of Obama's approval rating in their states. To wit:

But the extent to which Democrats are running ahead of their unpopular president is somewhat new.

In 2010, exit polls showed 84 percent of those who disapproved of Obamavoted for Republicans, compared to 85 percent of Obama supporters voting Democratic -- a pretty even split which made Obama's approval rating a good analogue for the overallvote.

Of course, Obama wasn't in as bad shape back then as he is today, which meant the universe of thosewho disapproved of him likely included fewer potential Democratic voters.

A better comparison is George W. Bush, who in 2006 wasabout as unpopular asObama is nowheading into his second midterm election (55 percent disapproval). In a September 2006 Post-ABC poll, 76 percent of those who disapproved of Bush said they intended to vote for the opposition party, the Democrats. That's pretty similar to Obama today.

But where Bush differed from Obama was among his supporters. While 85 percent of those who approve of Obama today are set to vote Democratic this year, just 77 percent of Bush supporters said in September 2006 that they were going to vote Republican.

Bush had basically no voting gap between his loyal supporters and his loyal opposition; Obama has a sizable 13-point gap -- likely in large part because the Republican Party is held in such low regard these days. So while approving or disapproving of the president was a pretty good vote indicator in 2006 and 2010, it appears less so this year.

Originally posted here:
The Fix: The good news for Democrats who are fretting about Obama

President Obama is a drag on Democrats this year, any way you slice it. His disapproval rating has been hoveringaround60 percent in the key Senate states, that hasn't gotten better, and 55 percent of registered voters rate his presidency as a "failure."The history ofan unpopular president's party in midterm election is even gloomier.

But tucked inside Tuesday's new Washington Post-ABC News poll is a semi-encouraging figure for Democrats: Among the clearmajority of Americans who disapprove of Obama (54 percent), a little bit less than three-quarters of them say they are voting Republican in the coming election -- just 72 percent.

I say "just" 72 percent, because that's in contrast to the 85 percent of Obama approvers who say they will vote for Democrats. In other words, opposing Obama is not an analogue for voting Republican in the upcoming election. And that's why Democratsstill have at least a fighting chance to keep the Senate (current generic ballot: 46 percent for Democrats, 44 percent for Republicans).

It's not really all thatsurprising. After all, Democrats in many key races are running well ahead of Obama's approval rating in their states. To wit:

But the extent to which Democrats are running ahead of their unpopular president is somewhat new.

In 2010, exit polls showed 84 percent of those who disapproved of Obamavoted for Republicans, compared to 85 percent of Obama supporters voting Democratic -- a pretty even split which made Obama's approval rating a good analogue for the overallvote.

Of course, Obama wasn't in as bad shape back then as he is today, which meant the universe of thosewho disapproved of him likely included fewer potential Democratic voters.

A better comparison is George W. Bush, who in 2006 wasabout as unpopular asObama is nowheading into his second midterm election (55 percent disapproval). In a September 2006 Post-ABC poll, 76 percent of those who disapproved of Bush said they intended to vote for the opposition party, the Democrats. That's pretty similar to Obama today.

But where Bush differed from Obama was among his supporters. While 85 percent of those who approve of Obama today are set to vote Democratic this year, just 77 percent of Bush supporters said in September 2006 that they were going to vote Republican.

Bush had basically no voting gap between his loyal supporters and his loyal opposition; Obama has a sizable 13-point gap -- likely in large part because the Republican Party is held in such low regard these days. So while approving or disapproving of the president was a pretty good vote indicator in 2006 and 2010, it appears less so this year.

View post:
The Fix: The best news for Democrats in the new WaPo poll

Democrats are wagering that women candidates will help them make a comeback in the South.

It worked six years ago when the party recruited Kay Hagan to defeat Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina and Senator Mary Landrieu won a third term in Louisiana, both with outsized support from women voters.

Now Democrats are applying that model in Kentucky, where Alison Lundergan Grimes is trying to oust Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Georgia, where Michelle Nunn is seeking to replace retiring Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss. Both have made an appeal to women voters a centerpiece of their campaigns.

Across the South, Democrats have struggled with an inability to attract white, male voters, said Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta. It may be that a female Democratic candidate can do better with female voters than a male candidate can, he said.

Mark Pryor, who is seeking a third term in Arkansas, is the only white, male Democratic senator representing a state in the Deep South. Three others -- Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia and Bill Nelson of Florida -- represent presidential battleground states with Democratic-leaning urban centers.

Michelle Nunn, Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, listens during her tour of the Whitewater Express rafting business by the Chattahoochee River in Columbus, Georgia, on April 16, 2014. Close

Michelle Nunn, Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, listens during her tour of the... Read More

Close

Michelle Nunn, Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, listens during her tour of the Whitewater Express rafting business by the Chattahoochee River in Columbus, Georgia, on April 16, 2014.

That stands in stark contrast to 20 years ago, when 13 white, male Democratic senators represented Southern states.

Visit link:
Democrats See South as No Country for White Men in Senate

By Leigh Ann Caldwell, CNN

updated 12:16 PM EDT, Mon September 8, 2014

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama postponed executive action on immigration, but Democrats want voters to know the delay isn't his fault.

Blame Republicans instead, according to the latest Democratic latest talking points.

Obama had weighed action on immigration -- including moves that could allow a path to legal status for millions of undocumented workers -- after congressional action on the issue stalled.

The President took the brunt of criticism immediately after the White House announced Saturday he is delaying any unitary action on immigration until after November's midterm elections.

He faced accusations of betrayal, bitter disappointment and frustration.

And those are from the President's allies -- Democrats and immigration reform proponents who lead communities that voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Since the weekend, Democrats began targeting House Republicans.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats blame GOP for Obama's delay on immigration

Washington Remember Bridgegate? Top Democrats want to make sure you do. Thats why they gathered in Fort Lee, N.J., Monday to highlight the one-year anniversary of the George Washington Bridge lane-closing scandal linked to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and a posse of state party officials gathered at the Fort Lee Historic Park to slam Gov. Christie for the traffic jam, as well as his handling of the state economy and frequent travel outside New Jerseys verdant bounds.

On Sept. 9, 2013, the New Jersey Port Authority abruptly closed some lanes on the GWB, causing massive gridlock on Fort Lee streets. Political retribution against the Fort Lee mayor, a Democrat who refrained from endorsing Christie in his gubernatorial reelection campaign, may have been the point of this move.

Some Christie staffers and appointees resigned in the scandals wake. No evidence has emerged to tie Christie directly to the order to roll out the orange cones, but federal authorities and New Jersey lawmakers are still investigating the matter.

Bridgegate began Christies downfall. His popularity sank. His approval rating declined. More people began to dislike him and disapprove of the job he is doing, said Representative Wasserman-Schultz of Florida in her Fort Lee appearance.

Why are Democrats piling on Christie? Perhaps theyre waving the Bridgegate flag because Christies presidential hopes havent been dashed at all over the last 12 months.

He continues to run hard in the pre-voting stage of the race, where candidates cross the nation to raise money, make contacts, and shake hands in Iowa and New Hampshire. According to early polls, hes now the GOP frontrunner: the RealClearPolitics rolling average of major surveys of Republican voters on Sept. 8 has Christie leading second-place Jeb Bush by 0.7 percent.

So the DNC is doing to Christie what the RNC is doing to Hillary Clinton. Theyre trying to ding the first-place person of the other party in order to keep their negatives up in advance of actual primaries. And Democrats have long worried that Christie, as a relatively moderate Northeasterner, could be a tough general election opponent.

But 0.7 percent isnt a lead, really, especially this early in the race. And theres also evidence that Bridgegate has undermined Christies national appeal in a manner that might hurt him when actual voting starts.

Christies favorability rating is now underwater, for instance. According to the Huffington Posts Pollster average, 47 percent of Americans view him negatively and 30 percent positively. Thats close to the exact opposite of the numbers he enjoyed one year ago, when his favorable rating was riding high.

Here is the original post:
Democrats slam Chris Christie on 'Bridgegate'. Why now? (+video)