While President Obama has recently cut a video for Organizing for America imploring his supporters from 2008 to turn out in the 2010 midterm elections, new data from Gallup suggests that given the general lack of enthusiasm that exists among Democrats it seems increasingly far fetch that Democrats will be able to replicate their 2008 coalition in this years’ midterms. Republicans on the other hand appear to be highly motivated to show up at the polls on Election Day.

More troubling for Democrats is there persistent deficit among independent voters.

Much has been written, discussed and pondered in the last week since the Arizona Legislature passed a very hard-line stance on illegal immigration enforcement.  There are two very important components that seemed to have been missed on the part of the national media during their discussions with non-Arizona “national leaders.”

First - the local issue.  Arguably more than any other state, illegal immigration is of grave concern in the state of Arizona.  The Mexican drug cartels have increased in size and the violence along the Arizona/Mexico border has become a significant problem.  Even with this situation, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has declared his city a “sanctuary city,” meaning he has ordered city officials to follow certain practices that protect illegal immigrants.  Couple this factor with the Maricopa County Sherriff - Joe Arpaio - who is outspoken about his efforts to round up illegal immigrants daily in patty wagons, put them in pink handcuffs and ship them back to their home county.  For those who aren’t familiar with Arizona’s geography, the city of Phoenix is entirely encompassed within Maricopa County, so the city’s law enforcement officials and the county’s law enforcement officials have completely opposite instructions on how to deal with illegal immigrants.  Because of these severely different means of enforcing the law in Arizona’s largest city, the state was forced to address it with a blanket policy.

Second - the national situation.  Whatever your personal feelings about the Arizona Legislature’s law and the constitutional issues surrounding it, the federal government’s lack of action on the matter forced their hand.  The State of Arizona has asked the federal government numerous times to send national guard troops to help protect US citizens from the violence along the Arizona/Mexico border to no avail (it should be noted that Arizona’s former Governor - Janet Napolitano - is currently the Homeland Security Secretary.  Read into that what you will).  The federal government has also put a significant amount of rhetoric on passing comprehensive federal immigration reform legislation.  But to date, nothing has happened.  With the violence increasing, Arizona’s State House members and State Senators had no choice but to pass a tough bill that will set the tone for all of the state’s law enforcement officials because of the lack of support from the federal government.  If the federal government is not doing its job in securing our borders, the State has no choice but to act upon the situation.  The political consequences are irrelevant compared to the State Legislature’s job of making sure the laws are properly enforced and our communities are kept safe and not put in harm’s way. 

It should be noted that recent polling data confirms that Arizona voters like the State Legislature’s bill.  While it is quite possible that Arizona voters differ significantly than US voters as a whole on the details of the state’s law, it underscores the local issue before the state and the federal government’s in-action in forcing the State Legislature’s hand into something it would have rather not had to take up.

Below are survey results in light of the highly publicized immigration bill passed by the Arizona State Legislature.  An interesting comparison between Arizona voters and the national mood on immigration reform.  Both polls were taken by Rasmussen.

Arizona Survey of 500 Likely Voters

Conducted April 15, 2010

By Rasmussen Reports

 1* Do you favor or oppose legislation that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant?

70% Favor
23% Oppose
6% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

 

 

National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted April 22-23, 2010

By Rasmussen Reports

1* Do you favor or oppose legislation that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant?

60% Favor
31% Oppose
10% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

 

 

 

Gallup releases new data that shows a significant drop-off in enthusiasm among young voters in the US.  This represents the latest in a series of indicators proving that the Obama wave will not make a reappearance in 2010.

Bottomline: Democrats are facing histroic loses.

The seats that the Democratic party won in 2008 due to Obama’s coattails will likely change parties.  Well-funded incumbents facing idiot challengers that shouldn’t have made it through their primaries will save a handful of seats.  But, overall, the Democrats should start bracing for the worst.

The White House should also create a “plan-b,” because Obama will be near lame-duck status at the beginning of the next Congress.

CEO and Founder Chris Wilson is presenting a series of case studies about WRS’ innovative donor enhancement research to the Christian Leadership Alliance Conference.

See the full presentation here (pdf).

As speculation mounts on as to whether Charlie Crist will pursue an Independent bid to be Florida’s next senator, everyone has their theory on whether an Indy bid by Crist could be successful. As someone who has donated to Marco Rubio, my personal belief is that Crist should bow out gracefully, support Rubio, and then run for the Senate in 2012 against Sen. Bill Nelson against whom, on paper is a better match up for him. It is unlikely that he can win in the primary and to do so would require him to run a scorched earth campaign against one of the GOP’s brightest rising stars.

And while an Independent bid looks like the most promising path for Crist to join the Senate based on recent polling, as Chris Cillizza points out Charlie Crist is no Joe Lieberman, and would face a real three way race (Lieberman had token GOP opposition) and the switch to the Independent line would most likely come off as opportunistic move rather than a principled one.

But the most compelling argument  is one hinted at by Mark Blumenthal: Crist is going to have to grow his support beyond what he currently has to prevail in a three way race. With a presently unknown Democrat in Kendrick Meek who will have the resources to increase his name ID and bring democratic voters home to the democratic candidate, it is unlikely that Crist will be able to maintain his 32% vote share among Democrats. Coupled with the loss of ties to the Republican fundraising establishment that an Indy bid would entail, Charlie Crist is facing long odds indeed.

Kudos to Peter Roff on an excellent piece for US News and World Report.  As Roff writes below, the President’s political problems just got significantly worse.

 

April 20, 2010 03:50 PM ET | Peter Roff |

GOLDMAN SACHS MAY BE OBAMA’S ENRON

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

As the Democrats attempt to push a new financial regulation bill through Congress the emerging Goldman Sachs scandal threatens to engulf the Obama administration.

As most everyone now knows, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has brought suit against the giant Wall Street firm, charging it deliberately misled investors who participated in a mortgage securities trade that was designed to fail. The firm, which posted a profit of more than $3 billion for the first quarter of 2010, denies the allegation, has come to symbolize in the minds of many the kind of bloated, malefactor of great wealth the Democrats used to suggest pulled the strings in the Republican Party.

The problem now is that the shoe is on the other foot.

As J.P. Freire writes in Tuesday’s Washington Examiner, Goldman Sachs employees gave Obama “nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers.� He adds:

… the mere $151,722.42 (inflation adjusted) in contributions from Enron-affiliated executives, employees, and PACs to Bush hardly add up to Obama’s $1,007,370.85 (inflation adjusted) from Goldman-affiliated executives and employees. That’s also not taking into account how much Goldman contributed to Obama cabinet member Hillary Clinton ($415,595.63 inflation adjusted), which was itself almost three times as much as Bush received as well.

Enron’s connections to the Bush White House, as Freire points out, was hyped by an hysterical Washington press corps once the company turned turtle, helped leverage the passage of the economically-damaging Sarbanes-Oxley bill. On the other hand the Goldman connection seems to be slowing the progress through Congress of the Obama-backed Wall Street bill.

House Minority Leader John Boehner and others have derided the proposed financial regulation bill as being nothing more than another bailout of the big banks. Up to now the American people have not really been provided with a thorough analysis of the legislation and its impact on Wall Street. Expect the Goldman Sachs connection to the Obama White House to be the sparks that provide it.

Pew’s new report “The People and Their Government” validates what conservatives have been saying for some time—Americans are frustrated and angry with the federal government. From the Pew study:

• Just 22% said they can trust the federal government always or almost always, the lowest it has been in 50 years.
  
• 43% see the impact of the federal government in their daily lives as negative.
  
• 53% said that the government needs major reform up from 37 % who said the same in 1997.
  
• 70% said a major problem with the federal government was that it is wasteful and inefficient, 52% said it was too big and too powerful.
  

Taken together with the persistently negative right direction/wrong track numbers, Americans are rejecting the big government and ineffective policies of the Democrats and realizing that what they were told on the campaign trail in 2008 is markedly different from what they are seeing from the administration and congress in 2010.

For a man who won just two years ago, Obama is facing a bevy of sagging numbers when it comes to voters’ disposition on re-electing him in 2012.

The most significant change is his support among the Independents, who 54% say Obama does not deserve re-election.  The 2008 exit polling shows Obama winning Independents 52% - 44%.

Health care reform, cap & trade, and the stimulus have created a perfect storm against Democrats and Obama.  The Democratic party is looking at loses that could exceed 40 in Congress, while the President is becoming more unpopular with each passing day.

There is no doubt that the 2010 election is a referendum on Obama’s policies.  The 2010 election could also spell trouble for a President that won with 53% of the vote.

Tyler Harber is VP and the dir. of the political division at Wilson Research Strategies. Prior to joining WRS, Harber was project dir. at Public Opinion Strategies. His previous work experience includes serving as a partner and dir. of research for National Public Strategies, senior electioneer for Southern Political Group, as well as campaign mgr. for dozens of candidates from school board to Senate. But today, he is our Consultant Candid.

What was your first job?

My parents are small business owners and fostered a strong entrepreneurial spirit in me. This meant that my first job was also my first business. Every day after school my parents would take me to a candy wholesaler where I stocked a tackle box full of candy that I would sell-out in a matter of minutes. I was in second grade bringing in several hundred dollars a week. Unfortunately, I was shut down after a month by the principal who told my parents that I had cut into the profit margins of the school’s candy operation that was open during recess. My parents were proud.

What is your proudest moment professionally?

My proudest moment professionally would probably be something most people would be embarrassed about. In 2008, I was among the legions of pundits that flooded cable news shows talking about the presidential race. After dozens of hits, I was lampooned by Comedy Central’s “Daily Show” in a segment they called “Who the F@#k is THAT Guy?” that made fun of relatively unknown pundits. The show then highlighted something I said in one of my hits as its parting “Moment of Zen.”

If you could be in any other line of work, what would it be?

Professional poker player.

Of what political campaign (past, present or future) would you most like to be a part?

I know it is cliché, but I would be interested in the 1980 or ‘84 Reagan Campaign … especially in the South.

What individual who does your kind of work for the other party do you respect the most, and why?

Jeremy Rosner of GQR Research. I worked with Jeremy in Ukraine for President Viktor Yushchenko and the Our Ukraine Party. Rosner is a brilliant researcher and strategist, but not arrogant about his talent. I had a chance to pick his brain as we traveled across Ukraine conducting focus groups. He lives an incredibly interesting life and has scored a ton of international political wins.

Negative campaigning — good or bad?

Negative campaigning is necessary. It has both good and bad aspects, but it is as necessary to a political victory as killing the enemy is to a military victory.

What is your favorite restaurant to meet clients?

The Majestic in Old Town Alexandria.

What is the first section of the newspaper you read?

I read all my papers online, and I generally start with the blogs written by reporters. You generally get more out of the extended posts on their blogs than in the restricted column-width of the story itself.

A question from last week’s participant, Danny Franklin of Benenson Strategy Group: Which would make you more likely to resign from a campaign: learning your candidate committed a violent crime or a crime of public corruption?

I would definitely leave for a violent crime, but would welcome the fight of developing a strategy to minimize the damage of the charges of public corruption.

Please pose a question for the next interviewee.

Has the infatuation with social media distracted strategists from the fact that most voters are still moved more by traditional medias?