By JOHN FUND

The New Jersey and Virginia governor’s races aren’t the only contests in which Democrats are feeling pressure from the growing unpopularity of President Obama’s policies. A GOP upset may also be in the making in a California House special election on November 3. Democratic Lt. Governor John Garamendi and Republican attorney David Harmer are battling for the Bay Area congressional seat vacated by Democrat Ellen Tauscher, who left to join the Obama state department. Normally a staunch Democratic seat, there is a growing chance it could swing to the GOP given the state’s latest budget collapse and the 13% approval rating of the state legislature.

Mr. Harmer has had no trouble portraying Mr. Garamendi as a big part of the state’s fiscal mess. Mr. Garamendi, a true-blue liberal who has held various offices for 30 years, clearly relishes the old tax-and-spend formula that got California into its current fiscal hole. “It’s not true that raising taxes harms the economy,” he declared at a recent economic forum, where he called for revisions to Proposition 13, the popular limit on local property taxes. He insisted that California’s woes “are a revenue problem, not a spending problem.”

Mr. Garamendi also appears to have a careless attitude about facts. His new campaign mailing attacks Mr. Harmer for telling a Utah newspaper that he supports moving American jobs to other countries. There’s one problem: The person quoted in the article is an entirely different David Harmer, a former official at the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development.

Mr. Harmer, a former Congressional aide and the son of Ronald Reagan’s last lieutenant governor in California, has demanded an apology but the Sacramento Bee reports that Mr. Garamendi’s handlers have “stuck with the smear and said the bottom line is still that Harmer doesn’t support President Obama’s efforts to create jobs.”

A recent poll using conventional turnout models by Wilson Research Strategies shows Mr. Garamendi with a 41% to 34% lead in the district, a less than stellar performance. In a low-turnout race, in which Democrats stay home out of a lack of enthusiasm for the candidate and for the party’s policies in Washington, an upset is definitely possible.

Read article at WSJ.com here.

The following piece on CNN.com quotes extensively from an interview with WRS CEO Chris Wilson.

Where the Republicans are having the biggest problem now is sort of a vacuum of leadership,” said Republican strategist Chris Wilson.

Catch phrases, slogans and tag lines can change, Wilson said, “but what it gets down to is leadership, and it is all about who is seen as the leader of the party.”

“It’s not like you can just change one day the Republican brand from ‘a to b’ the way that Kentucky Fried Chicken tried to go from ‘Finger lickin’ good’ to ‘We do chicken right.’ It just doesn’t work like that,” said Wilson, who has conducted thousands of public opinion surveys for candidates, companies and political groups.

Read the entire article here.

Since my appearance on MSNBC regarding Sarah Palin has generated so much conversation, I felt it might be a good idea to expand upon the points I made while debating the commentators.  I realize my comments fly in the face of conventional wisdom and are contrary to the analysis given by most Republican consultants. 

That understood, I think there are three good reasons that the Palin resignation could (key word: could) be a good move for her on a long term basis:

1) The money angle (as Charlie Cook covered this week).

1. The Palin’s aren’t wealthy. They haven’t reached the point that they don’t have to work as Mitt Romney can.
2. If she’s going to be a full-time campaigner for two years starting in 2010 she can’t do it by earning a Governor’s salary from now until the end of her term.
3. She needs the money she’ll earn giving speeches and writing a book to support her family while she runs for President.
4. In a lot of ways the media, safe in their elite and very well-paid lives, is missing the basic blue-collar story here.

 2) The campaign for the GOP nomination has already started.

1. The two other major known contenders-Romney and Huckabee-are already on the road doing GOP events around the country and building a constituency.
2. Palin can’t compete with that if she has to be in Juneau and run a state.
3. It’s a sad reality of the modern political campaign but your choices if you want to run for President now seem to be quitting your job or being a U.S. Senator who isn’t up for re-election.

 3) Sarah Palin needs to be Sarah Palin.

1. The Governor knows her most powerful political asset is her ability to personally connect with voters.
2. Conversely, her most formidable political liability is the hatred that the media and many DC political elites seem to have for her.
3. Right now, hanging out in Juneau, all of the information voters receive about her is mediated by either the press or political elites (of both parties I might add).
4. By resigning now she gets back out on the road and can reminds voters why they liked her so much the last time she was able to talk to them directly.

Finally, it’s clear from Tuesday’s Gallup results that American voters don’t think Governor Palin is dead politically:

1. Among Republicans more than seven in ten (72%) said they were at least somewhat likely to vote for her if she were a candidate in the 2012 election.
2. Following her resignation; more than 2/3 of Republicans (67%) say they believe Sarah Palin should be a major political figure.
3. Seven in ten voters say her resignation has no affect on their opinion of her (remarkable considering the negative media coverage)
4. 53% of voters in Gallup survey said that the news media coverage of Palin had been unfairly negative.

This article was co-written by Chris Wilson and Daniel Narvaiz

As someone who regularly speaks to Republican gatherings around the country and on television, I’m regularly asked to predict the context in which 2010 general election campaigns will be run.

Of course, no one knows. It is impossible to predict the events and narratives that might arise between now the fall of 2010 that will define those elections any more than a researcher in the summer of 2001 could have predicted the tragedies of 9-11 or a researcher in the summer of 2006 could have predicted the spate of late-breaking scandals that would destroy any hope of retaining a Republican majority.

That understood, what we can do is analyze the early evidence and help our candidates understand what the landscape may resemble in late 2010. From that perspective all signs point to a golden opportunity for Republicans to take the offensive on a variety of issues.

Looking back at President Truman’s mid-term election, the first mid-term election Gallop reports Presidential approval for, the President’s party has lost seats in the House in all but two cases:

• In 1998 Democrats picked up five seats due at least in part to Republicans impeachment of President Clinton who was very popular at the time (throughout 1998 President Clinton’s approval ratings floated in the mid 60’s).
• In 2002, President George W. Bush’s first mid-term election, Republicans gained a total of eight seats. However, Bush’s approval ratings were in the 70’s and the American public was willing to give the President just about anything he wanted to protect the country from terrorism.

President Obama’s job approval ratings have already fallen below the 60% approval mark that has generally protected the sitting President’s party in Congress. Based on current trends, Obama is likely to have approval ratings in the mid-fifties if not worse.

In the last 60 years Presidents have had approval ratings in the mid 50’s on three separate occasions and their party lost an average of 27 seats in the House.

Unless the economy dramatically reverses itself in an almost unprecedented manner, the economy is likely to still be in recession during the 2010 mid-term elections. The economy has been in a state of recession during 7 different mid-term elections and in all but one (2002 which was a true outlier due to the events of September 11) of those cases the President’s party lost seats in the House. The average loss among those years was 24 seats (Presidents Eisenhower and Ford lost 48 seats each in ’58 and ’74 respectively).

President Obama is beginning to look ineffective at driving the Democratic agenda. The Administration narrowly passed Cap and Trade, one of the President’s top priorities, through the House and according to Senators Reid and Inhofe it is likely dead in the Senate. Healthcare reform does not appear likely to move quickly; almost certainly not before 2010.

While President Obama is currently receiving high marks on his handling of Foreign Policy, recent gaffes and mis-steps by the President could change that. Ineffective responses to situations in Iran, North Korea and Honduras haven’t hurt Obama yet, but if we see real harm come to American interests in general, or American citizens specifically, as a result of this weak, almost Carteresque, approach to foreign policy it will put Democrats at an even greater electoral disadvantage.

The ‘signature’ achievements of the Democrats in Congress and the administration coming into 2010 may end up being unpopular economic policies, such as the federal stimulus and the banking and auto bailouts. These are all issues that will help Republicans.

While it is too early to speak with certainty, the current direction of the political environment appears as though 2010 is shaping up to be a year where the political winds will favor Republicans.

At the very least, the “halo� around the administration is quickly dissipating. Republicans who hope to be successful in 2010 should already be working to test and refine messages that will highlight the differences between a Republican approach to solving national problems and the handouts, bailouts, and takeovers approach that the Big Government Democrats in DC are so passionately pushing today.

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

This article was co-written by Chris Wilson and Matt Gammon

With the administration making it a priority and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate vying to see who can go first, it is increasingly clear that health care will see some major action in the not too distant future. As researchers one of our first impulses when we see a major issue coming up to bat is to wonder, “so what does the public think?” What does the battleground for this fight look like?

As is often the case with a complicated issue the answer depends very much on how you ask the question.

First things first, should this issue be a priority? A recent Diageo/Hotline poll (June 4-7, 2009, n=800 RV) asks “Do you support or oppose Congress and the President enacting a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system?” 62% of the public supports it, so far so good for the administration.

However when asked “which do you think should be the bigger focus of any health care reform legislation: controlling the costs of health care or expanding the coverage for Americans without health insurance?” a plurality (49%) would rather see measures enacted that would control costs.

This data agrees with an Ipsos/McClatchy poll (April 30-May 2, 2009, n=486 adults), where, when asked a similar question, 51% agreed that controlling costs should be the main focus, rather than universal coverage.

Involving the government in an issue has never been the way to cut costs. Ever. Spending $1 trillion during an economic crisis smacks of hubris.

Further, a recent Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor survey (April 8-14, 2009, n=1,200 adults) asked a particularly interesting question, “How confident are you that you could maintain your current standard of living if you or someone in your family suffered a major illness or accident?” 61% were very or somewhat confident they could maintain their standard of living.

Clearly, while many Americans think something needs to be done about health care, it is not the over-riding life-altering problem that some in this debate would make it out to be. How could it be when the majority of Americans believe that their standard of living would be unaffected by a major health crisis in their family?

The administration is determined to “fix” the problem of health care, however, and a government takeover of health care is central to Democratic ideas of “solutions”. Before they charge down that path, however, perhaps the administration could be persuaded to pause briefly and consider one final number: 37%. That’s the number of Americans believe that a government guaranteed universal health care plan would hurt the national economy (CBS News/New York Times, April 1-5, 2009, n=998 adults).

Only 34% feel that it would improve the economy, so Americans are clearly divided on the effects that this $1 trillion new plan would have on the most important issue facing the nation today.

Of those who support health care, only a minority think it will actually help the economy, and given the results of the Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor survey, one could find grounds for doubting whether or not Americans can be convinced that spending this kind of money, with “bailout fatigue� setting in and following a string of high profile federal interventions, is justifiable.

Data seem to indicate that the public will not rally to the President’s call. Kaiser Family Foundation recently released a survey (June 1-8, 2009, n=1,205 adults) that shows 60% of Americans think that “if policy makers made the right changes they could reform the health care system without spending more money to do it�. Only 34% are resigned to the need to spend more money to fix health care.

Public opinion, of course, doesn’t determine how effective a policy is but it politicians who want to remain in business do, and should, pause to consider it.

The simple fact is that, while the public wants action taken on health care, most people want to reduce costs rather than expand coverage, and government intervention will not reduce costs.

Americans clearly want health care reformed, but they want it simplified and they don’t want to spend more money to do it.

There is a clear position for Republicans to take on this issue, and we should put effort into fleshing out the position of being for cost effective, simplified healthcare.

This article was co-written by Chris Wilson and Daniel Narvaiz

It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. – Joe Biden

Six months into the Obama administration has arrived and with it the tests from rogue states.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad made clear his desire to acquire nuclear weapons and become the dominant player in the Middle East. Recent polling by Terror Free Tomorrow in conjunction with The Center for Public Opinion finds that 62% of Iranians oppose any peace treaty recognizing Israel and favor all Muslims fighting until there is no state of Israel in the Middle East. A majority of Iranians (52%) favor the development of nuclear weapons and a substantial number (49%) say that developing an nuclear weapons arsenal should be a priority for the nation. Ahmadinejad and his people want nuclear weapons and it is not a stretch to believe they will use them on Israel and on US friendlies in the region.

North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-il may be a mad man, but he is a mad man with access to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Over the course of the last month the North Korean dictator successfully tested a nuclear weapon. He followed the nuclear test with the launch of several ballistic missiles.

The American public is much more ready to take action against the rising Iranian and North Korean nuclear threats than its government seems to be.

A recent McLaughlin & Associates poll finds that over seventy percent of American voters say that the United States would not be safe with a nuclear Iran. Eighty percent also believe that it is likely that Iran will launch a missile attack on Israel, our key ally in the region.

An April Rasmussen Reports survey found that likely voters were already ready to strike North Korea (57% stated that the United States should take military action to eliminate North Korea’s ability to launch long range missiles if North Korea launched a long range missile). The same survey also found that 46% of likely voters already consider North Korea an enemy of the United States.

While the White House uses kid gloves on Iran and North Korea, Republicans actually have an opportunity to drive an issue advantage home.

We at WRS will be examining the impact of specific language on this issue over the next several months. That understood, some initial representations of the liberal Obama/Clinton/Pelosi foreign policy agenda that should work depending on the race or district include:

• 1970’s liberal weakness: Dealing with rogue states that test fire missiles, build nuclear bombs, harass their neighbors and even attack Americans with diplomacy that amounts to “a stern talking to.â€�
• A new isolationism: Turning away from our leading role in the world and our commitments to our allies by basically saying that North Korea and Iran “aren’t our problemâ€� and that “neighboring countries should clean up the mess.â€�

Those are two big tests for the Obama Administration and so far their response has been right out of a Hollywood caricature…

Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you… and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.

This article was co-authored by Chris Wilson and Alex Brunk

Endorsements are a matter of some debate among most political operatives and pollsters.  Conventional wisdom is that they don’t matter much.  When they do matter, it’s because they run contrary to expectations.  A Democratic Party official endorsing a Democratic candidate is not news.

Colin Powell endorsing Barack Obama was the kind of “man bites dog� story that can make news and move votes.  A key theme of McCain’s campaign was leadership, his years of experience in the military and government, and the premise that Obama was too risky.  Colin Powell’s profile, not only as a Republican, but as a great leader/foreign policy expert made his endorsement significant.  It caused voters to question basic assumptions about the leadership skills of both candidates and the foreign policy implications associated with the McCain v Powell choice.

Such seems to be the case with the Washington Post’s endorsement of Creigh Deeds last week in the Democratic primary for Governor of Virginia.

Polls over the last month have consistently shown Former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe with a substantial lead for the Democratic nomination for Governor.  He had been dead even with Delegate Brian Moran for most of the first part of the year, with Creigh Deeds trailing by about ten points.  But all polling in the month of May showed McAuliffe breaking away and taking the lead.

But this week, two polls were released that shed some serious doubt on the prospect of a McAuliffe victory.  The first, from GQR for the Brian Moran campaign, shows Moran in the lead with 29%, with Deeds at 27% and McAuliffe at 26%.  Essentially a three way tie.  A Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll (conducted through IVR) shows Creigh Deeds taking the lead with 27% with McAuliffe at 24% and Moran at 22%.

According to the PPP survey, between May 21^st and June 2^nd Deeds went from 11% to 23% in the critical Northern Virginia counties, representing 30% of the Democratic primary vote.  The Washington Post endorsed Deeds on May 22nd.  Since none of the candidates had spent heavily on TV in the DC media market before this week, the WaPo endorsement seems the most likely candidate for Creigh Deeds’ sudden jump in support in northern Virginia.

Why did this happen?   Because much like Powell’s endorsement of Obama, the Washington Post endorsement of Deeds calls into question some assumptions voters may have made about the race.  One of these is that Terry McAuliffe was the candidate of the DC Democratic elite.  Many voters might have assumed that he would have the support of an inside-the-beltway entity like the Washington Post.  Not getting their nod calls this assumption into question.

Simultaneously, as the only candidate not from Northern Virginia, Deeds may not have been seriously considered by voters here until some external event (the Washington Post endorsement) caused them to take a second look.

An endorsement from the Washington Post thrusts Deeds right into the mix in Northern Virginia and gives voters there the opportunity/motivation to examine him as a legitimate choice.  Judging by the polling, a lot of voters seem to be liking what they see.  And it could provide a rare example of a newspaper endorsement making a major different in one of the highest profile campaigns in the country this year.

What this means for our candidates in primaries this year and next is that there is value in highly public endorsements that challenge conventional wisdom about them–or their opponent.  Finding these contrarian endorsements is a valuable earned media effort that can help change the paradigm of a race.

From today’s Washington Post “The Fix” Blog:

Chris Wilson, a Republican pollster, added that the content of Obama’s speech today and how he frames the crisis are critical in determining how the message is received by the public.

“If he gives another speech like those he has given so far, the actual message America perceives will quickly change from ‘it’s the other guy’s fault’ to ‘I don’t know how to fix this,’” predicted Wilson. “When that happens, not only does Obama ‘own’ the problem, he starts to drown in it.”

What’s clear — no matter where you come down on whether Obama has been focused too little, just enough or too much on the economy — is that the American public cares about almost nothing else at this juncture.

Well, it happened.  In today’s speech Obama took ownershp of the economy.

Like what you read?  Follow us on Twitter:

WRS CEO/Founder Chris Wilson: @WilsonWRS
VP/Director of Political Division Tyler Harber:  @Tharber

What is Twitter?  Twitter for Republicans.