Dec. 1, 2915 — The results of a new exhaustive national survey were released over the Thanksgiving Day holiday break providing some thought-provoking conclusions.
The YouGov international polling organization in conjunction with London’s The Economist newspaper conducted the major American electorate Internet-based poll (Nov. 19-23; 2,000 adult respondents) containing 100 questions, the answers to which were quickly released and reported upon. (An additional 21 questions were asked according to the analysis, but not included in the report.)
Many of the questions provided an interesting snapshot into how a large segment of the American public is presently thinking. The responses pertaining to candidate ballot tests and individual approval ratings, however, are not of particular significance because the sample contains only 71 percent registered voters. Therefore, they will not be discussed here.
When asked about the one most important issue to each individual respondent, 16 percent said the economy, another 16 percent said terrorism, and 15 percent said Social Security. While a majority (54 percent) do not believe a government shutdown will occur, 31 percent said that Republicans in Congress would be to blame if one were to happen. But, an almost equal 30 percent would attest such responsibility to President Obama. An additional 26 percent said both would be accountable. This is a much different outlook than would be cast from the national media, which would heavily focus upon Republicans as the motivating force to cease operating some government services in order to achieve certain policy objectives.
While recent polling numbers are improving for Democrats or their allies in a number of key Senate races (North Carolina, Colorado, Louisiana, and Kansas), a look at the party’s new ad buy in congressional races capsulizes their plight in the House.
In a report issued earlier this week, the Gallup organization, which has been charting partisan affiliation by age since 1992, detected clear voter behavior shifts. Among senior citizens, defined as those in the aged 65 and older group, a plurality is now aligned with the Republican Party. According to Gallup, 48 percent of this Continue reading >
In a stunning final special election result from Florida last night, Republican David Jolly, who opponents painted as a Washington lobbyist representing an organization that favors Social Security privatization, upset favored Democratic candidate Alex Sink in Florida’s 13th Congressional District. The campaign’s conclusion carries national implications.
The Affordable Care Act was front and center throughout the contest, with Jolly touting his opposition to the program and Sink relying on a catch phrase of “keeping what’s right [with the healthcare program] and fixing what’s wrong”. Her argument, before a Sunshine State congressional district with the sixth largest segmentation of people (in Florida) over 65 years of age (22.8 percent), apparently fell upon largely disbelieving ears.
Jolly won the race 48.5 – 46.6 percent, with 4.8 percent going to Libertarian Party nominee Lucas Overby. The Republican victory margin was 3,456 votes from a huge total of 183,627 ballots cast. Continue reading >
The special election to replace the late Florida Rep. Bill Young (R) in the 13th Congressional District is heating up, and the Republican Party chieftains must soon decide whether or not to match their opponents’ multi-million dollar campaign expenditure budget. Combined, the Democratic national party apparatus and their outside organization allies are making winning this open Tampa Bay congressional special election the highest of priorities.
The National Republican Congressional Committee did just purchase $230,000 in television air time in order to run a negative ad campaign against Democratic nominee Alex Sink. This, in addition to their previous $495,000 outlay, brings their total expenditure for the March 11 special election already to $725,000. This is a major sum for one House seat, but the Democrats are doing far more.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has already spent or allocated $820,000 for the 13th District special election, in addition to the House Majority PAC organization dropping $650,000. Continue reading >
A year away from the 2012 election, embattled Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (D) already has embarked on a rather interesting strategic course. If the logic behind his new television ad ultimately prevails, a new chapter in campaign finance law could be opening. If the Republicans directly counter-attack, Nelson may have prematurely opened a door that he would have preferred kept closed.
The Nebraska Democratic State Central Committee is paying for an ad that attacks all three of Nelson’s Republican opponents, graphically portraying them as three peas in a pod. The Senator’s campaign claims that this ad is part of an independent issue expenditure and should not count against the coordinated expenditure limit between party and candidate. What’s different about this “independent” ad – one that cannot be coordinated with a campaign – is that the senator himself appears in the spot and says he approves of its message. If this is considered “independent,” then we could have a whole new approach to all other independent expenditure campaigns.
In the body of the ad, Nelson and his party claim the Republican candidates want to cut Medicare and Social Security and that he (Nelson) will protect them both. Yet, when the senator became the deciding vote on the Obama healthcare plan that led to the infamous “Cornhusker Kick-back” attack, now the source of Nelson’s current political trouble, he himself supported a $500 million cut in Medicare by voting for the bill. The counter-argument to this point seems an easy one for the GOP candidates to make.
The new party ad, independent or not, may prove to cause Sen. Nelson more trouble than it might be worth. His taking such bold action at this time clearly confirms the public polls that show him trailing his Republican opponents.