If the all the arm twisting and browbeating employed by Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team is any indication, then Democrats in the House have decided that passing the cap and trade energy tax is a hill they are willing to die on. 

Given the latest data from Rasmussen, they may get their wish. Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans oppose the climate change bill recently passed by the House, whereas 37% support the bill.  While there is a predictable partisan split on the bill, it is a losing issue among Independents as only 24% of Independents support the bill at all, compared to 38% who strongly oppose the legislation. 

Given this data, it seems that a number of Democratic House Members threw caution to the wind in order to appease the liberal wing of their party.  Thirty-six of them to be exact.  Thirty-six Democrat members in districts that have a Cook Partisan Voting Index that leans Republican voted in favor of raising energy taxes on working families. 

Drilling down on the vulnerable Democrats who voted for Waxman-Markey: we find:

·         Four Democrats in CPV R+10 or better

·         Seventeen Democrats in CPV R+5 or better

More troubling for Democrats who voted for the cap and trade bill is that 42% of Americans believe that this bill will hurt the economy as opposed to 19% who believe that it will help the economy.  Furthermore, a majority (52%) of independents believe that Waxman-Markey will hurt the American economy.  Given that the economy continues to be the number one issue on the minds of voters this does not bode well for vulnerable Democrats.  While anyone would be foolish to raise taxes in the midst of a recession, the 12 Democrats who voted for Waxman-Markey despite representing a state with an unemployment rate higher than the national average could potentially face the toughest reelection campaigns. 

From the PRIsm Political update:

Book-banning, freedom of speech, corporate contributions, public disclosure - the Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission) case currently before the US Supreme Court has all of this and more, including a surprise ending.
 
SCOTUS announced on Monday that it is taking what can only be described as extraordinary action that will potentially lead to a constitutional review of the McCain-Feingold Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).  The Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, stated that a new round of oral arguments has been scheduled for September 9th, thus expanding the of eventual ruling to possibly include whether the Act itself is constitutional.
 
Citizens United, led by long time conservative activist David Bossie, produced a documentary film during the 2008 Democratic primary season entitled “Hillary - The Movie.”  Like Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 911″ hitting the marketplace in 2004, the Citizens United movie was to be released on DVD, Pay-Per-View, and in certain theatres.  Viewers were paying to view the documentary and it, like Fahrenheit 911, was portrayed by its creators as containing a message that did not explicitly advocate election or defeat of a political candidate, but certainly depicted their subject in a negative light.
 
The FEC contended the movie advocated the defeat of Hillary Clinton for President despite not using the “magic words” of “vote for or against.”  The FEC claimed the film and Citizens United should be brought under their jurisdiction; that disclosure reports would have to be filed, federal election law adhered to, and that contributors and/or investors’ identities and contribution or investment amounts must be made public.  Citizens United argued their case based upon 1st Amendment grounds and that their organization, like Moore’s as was stated in the FEC’s own previous ruling, qualified for the BCRA media exemption. 
 
Controversy arose during oral arguments when Department of Justice deputy solicitor Malcolm Stewart, representing the FEC, answered questions posed by Justice David Souter. In responding to the Associate Justice’s queries, Stewart said that under BCRA, the US government, in the guise of the FEC, has the authority to even ban corporate or labor union funded books whose message, in the opinion of certain government speech regulators, does not conform to the parameters as outlined in the Act.  These statements seemed to take the Court by surprise and could have contributed to the Justices wanting to take what appears to be a broader look at the law’s constitutionality.
 
The Court specifically wants the attorneys to provide briefs about previous rulings concerning limits on corporate and labor union spending as it relates to political campaigns.  Should the Court decide to overturn large portions of McCain-Feingold, the previous system of unlimited spending through 527 organizations without disclosure could possibly be re-installed, thus freeing up individuals and organizations to more freely participate in the electoral process.  What will not happen, based upon the scope of what the Court wants to consider, is a ruling that will allow the major national party organizations to again raise non-federal monies.  

 
It is clear the Court’s unusual step in ordering a re-hearing and outlining the scope of the arguments it wants to hear might be an indication of a major ruling that will again fundamentally change the way political speech is funded and governed.  The decision will likely come in the early part of next year, meaning any new changes will affect the 2010 elections.
 
What began as a rather narrow case affecting one political movie may have blossomed into a wide-ranging decision that will greatly alter the American political system.

 

PDF of Memo (content pasted below)

Wilson Research Strategies was commissioned by Peter Schiff to conduct a live-interview telephone survey of likely Connecticut voters to determine the feasibility of a run for U.S. Senate against Chris Dodd in November 2010. WRS completed the survey of n=400 likely voters June 24–25, 2009. The sample was stratified to be geographically and demographically representative of the likely voter population of Connecticut. The study has a margin of error of ±4.9%.

The following are the key findings from the ballot match-ups:

• Chris Dodd remains very weak in this deeply blue state that went 61% for Obama in 2008, allowing Peter Schiff to split the vote on the ballot inside the margin of error.
o Voters were asked: “If the general election for US Senate were held today, for whom would you vote if the candidates were (Choices Rotated)…�
Peter Schiff 38%
Chris Dodd 42%
Undecided/Ref 20%

• Rob Simmons, who has been running for nearly six months, does not have a lock on the race against Dodd even though Simmons has likely benefited directly from any anti-Dodd sentiment and maintains higher name recognition than Peter Schiff.
o Voters were asked: “If the general election for US Senate were held today, for whom would you vote if the candidates were (Choices Rotated)…�
Rob Simmons 47%
Chris Dodd 38%
Undecided/Ref 15%

o Republican voters are only slightly more supportive (just outside the margin of error) of Simmons than Schiff, despite knowing Simmons much better and for a longer period of time. Schiff garners the exact same support among strong Republicans as Simmons does, indicating that Schiff could start the race with significant base support, equal to the support Simmons currently enjoys.
Schiff vs Dodd
• Self Identified Republican: 69% Schiff
• Self Identified Strong Republican: 90% Schiff

Simmons vs Dodd
• Self Identified Republican: 74% Simmons
• Self Identified Strong Republican: 90% Simmons

CEO Chris Wilson speaks to the National Religious Broadcasters Research Symposium today about the public opinion of Christians on several key issues, and the demographic challenges facing radio ministries.

Exploring Public Opinion of Three Key Issues for Radio Ministries: Fairness Doctrine, Hate Crimes Legislation, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
While there are a number of issues critical to the survival and functioning of radio ministries, and in many cases Christian ministries overall, Christians are not necessarily aware of or engaged on these issues. We examined public opinion polling data on three issues particularly important to radio ministries: employment non-discrimination in hiring by religious organizations, hate crimes, and the so-called “fairness doctrine.�

The fundamental finding of this analysis is that Christians’ opinions on these issues are not what we would expect them to be if they understood the threat that federal action on each of the issues might pose to a variety of Christian organizations including radio ministries. As we will discuss in more detail later in this analysis, radio ministries and others who help shape the opinion of Christians on these issues may need to do more to educate them about the importance of these issues and the implications of them for ministry organization….

Access Full Paper Here
Access Full Powerpoint Presentation Here

Demographic Challenges Facing Radio Ministries
Our data suggests that radio ministries (and all ministries) are facing a dual challenge posed by a short-term drop in support due to the economic recession and a longer-term danger due to donor demographics. Of the two, we consider the longer-term threat to be the more critical. This threat is compounded because the same lack of success in acquiring new, younger donors that is driving the demographic trend is also forcing ministries to place additional stress on existing donors….

Access Full Paper Here
Access Full Powerpoint Presentation Here

A new survey indicates that laid off workers are spending more time engaging in their communities by volunteering (8%) and becoming more involved in their local church (6%).  This newly minted free time could significantly change political environments now that 9% of the US is unemployed.

As the unemployed search for jobs, they are also afforded an opportunity to become more informed on the issues as down time is likely spent in-front of a television or computer.  This could spark higher political engagement, as fatigued and angry people are the forefront of any revolution.

As you could imagine, the growing legion of unemployed are most concerned with providing for themselves (see below); however, attention could soon be turned to the failure of Obama’s “stimulus” to save their jobs.  This could spell trouble for Democrats in 2010.

 

 

By: Emily Cadei (link to article)

Investor and financial commentator Peter Schiff is doing polling in Connecticut to gauge support for a potential Republican Senate run. Schiff has signed on prominent Republican polling firm Wilson Research Strategies to survey the state, his brother and spokesman Andrew Schiff told CQ Politics.

“Peter is a non-traditional candidate,” said Andrew Schiff of his brother, an outspoken libertarian who has gained attention for correctly predicting the collapse of the mortgage industry despite mockery from other industry analysis. “We’re attracting a lot of very fervent believers.The question is whether or not this will all resonate with the voters of Connecticut.”

Indeed, Schiff was not considering a Senate run against five-term Sen. Christopher J. Dodd until he became the subject of an aggressive drafting campaign this past winter. Schiff’s first brush with politics was as an economic adviser to Republican Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. That role linked him into a network of Paul supporters who have urged Schiff to run for office — Andrew Schiff said his brother has been “bombarded with emails and phone calls” over the last several months.

What remains unclear is whether Schiff has a legitimate shot of taking on more traditional politicians like former Rep. Rob Simmons and state Sen. Sam Caligiuri in the Republican primary and Dodd in a general election.

“We do think there’s certainly room for the fiscally conservative, libertarian wing of the party to attract a lot of attention in the Northeast,” Andrew said, adding that Peter is prepared to develop a policy portfolio not just on finance and monetary policy, his speciality, but also on hot-button issue like health care and energy. But economics will remain is major focus.

“We’re leaning towards a run,” he said, however, “Peter doesn’t want to spend a lot of time and money if there’s really no chance.”

A new survey out demonstrates how different voters from both parties view our current economic crisis.  Republicans are returning to their roots, as they worry about the growing deficit, income taxes and budget problems.  Democrats are more concerned with rising unemployment, and healthcare.

Campaigns are stuggling to find the middle-ground economic issues that are important to the base and soft-partisans that are necessary to win.  According to this survey, the cost of health care (not to be confused with access to healthcare), decreasing pay and increasing personal debt may be those issues.

Check out Tyler Harber’s latest blog post on Politics Magazine’s Campaign Insider Blog about Robo versus Live-interview polling, and the kind of data each produces.

Other recent posts by Harber:

The Strategic Values of Financial Filings

The First-Time Blind

The Rise of the Free-Market Candidate

David A. Ridenour (National Center for Public Policy Research)
Townhall.com
Friday, June 26, 2009

Overly influenced by certain big-name green groups, misled by their own ideology and perhaps also a bit dazzled by the unlikely stardom of failed-politician-turned-climate-hero Al Gore, Democrats on Capitol Hill seem bent on self-destruction when it comes to climate change.

At issue is palatable opposition to continuing plans for expensive and job-killing cap-and-trade legislation among members of the Democratic Party’s most loyal core constituency: African-Americans.

A nationwide poll exclusively of African-Americans nationwide just released by the National Center for Public Policy Research found that 76 percent of African-Americans want action on climate change delayed until after the economy recovers.

The 800 African-Americans surveyed were overwhelmingly Democrat: 80 percent self-identified as Democrats, 67 percent self-reported being “strong” Democrats. Only 4 percent self-identified as Republican.

Yet despite the association of the climate change issue with the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama — who, according to a CNN/Essence Magazine/Opinion Research Corp. poll released June 25, still receives the support of 96 percent of the African-American community — black Americans leave the fold in droves when it comes to climate change.

Among the poll’s findings:

- 76% of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery its top priority, even if it delays action on climate change;

- 38% believe job losses resulting from climate change legislation would fall heaviest on the African-American community. Only 7% believe job losses would fall heaviest on Hispanics and only 2% believe they would fall heaviest on whites;

- 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately take into account the economic and quality of life concerns of the African-American community when formulating climate change policy;

- 52% of respondents aren’t willing to pay anything more for either gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas and 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions;

- African-Americans are virtually deadlocked on whether to proceed with plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if doing so increases consumer prices and unemployment. 44% of those surveyed said emissions reductions should not proceed under these circumstances, while 45% said they should continue. Significantly, a strong majority (59% to 33%) of those surveyed in the West North Central Region (Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska) and a plurality (43% to 42%) of those in the East Central Region (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin) opposed emissions reductions if they increase costs or unemployment.

With concern about a Waxman-Markey-style climate change bill running this high among a group of predominantly Obama voters, it’s bound to be much higher among the general population, despite what leading Democrats have chosen to believe.

For most Americans, James Carville’s old slogan for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential race, “It’s the economy, stupid,” remains as much in effect as ever.

Yet the Democratic leadership remains staunchly and energetically behind the Waxman-Markey climate bill, which, the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis determined, would reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion, kill 844,000 jobs and raise the energy bill paid by a typical family by about $1,500 annually.

The climate legislation isn’t just semi-suicidal for the economy; it could be for the Democratic leadership in Congress as well.

African-Americans have expressed frustration for years that the Democratic Party takes them for granted. When poll results among a group of overwhelmingly pro-Democrat voters are 76 percent in favor of putting the economy first on a very high-profile issue, and the Democrat leadership chooses to ignore them, who is likely to suffer the most in the end?

Barack Obama himself may escape much of the blame; he is, after all, the first African-American president, and he has (no doubt intentionally) kept his profile low on this bill. But will Nancy Pelosi and the predominately white Democrat leadership be so lucky?

There are a number of aspects that Republicans and Democrats differ on healthcare.  An example is how each view government spending for health care in a recently released survey:

Statement A: Reforming health care is so important that the government should invest new resources to make sure it is done right.

Statement B: Reforming health care is important, but it should be done without raising taxes or increasing the deficit.

GOP: 19% A / 75% B
IND: 32% A/ 62% B
DEM: 57% A / 38% B

But, there are a few proposal regarding Obamacare that they can agree on, including taxing health care benefits:

Statement A: Employees should pay taxes on the health care benefits they get from their employers to raise revenue to give everyone health insurance coverage.

Statement B: Employer provided health care should continue to be tax free.  Paying taxes on health care benefits will only make health care more expensive than it already is.

GOP: 14% A / 80% B
IND: 22% A/ 67% B
DEM: 30% A / 64% B

To recap, Democrats don’t want to pay for health care through an added tax on their own benefits; however, believe that Uncle Sam should just pay for it through the magic of deficit spending.