Google Ads


Site Stats

IA-Gov: New Register poll has bad news for Culver

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 10:35 PM EST


Governor Chet Culver has gone through a couple of very tough months, with a film tax credit scandal breaking in September and low revenue projections prompting a 10 percent across-the-board budget cut in October. Selzer and Co. polled Iowans for the Des Moines Register last week, and Culver's numbers are at an all-time low.  
desmoinesdem :: IA-Gov: New Register poll has bad news for Culver
Culver is at 40 percent approve/49 percent disapprove (Selzer's last poll in September pegged his approval at 50 percent). The right direction/wrong track numbers are 34/57, the worst they've been in ten years.

Culver loses a hypothetical matchup with former Governor Terry Branstad 57 percent to 33 percent, and he loses to Bob Vander Plaats 45 percent to 37 percent. Against Chris Rants and Christian Fong, Culver can't break 50 percent. He's ahead of Rants 42-35 and ahead of Fong 42-34.

The last governor to score as low was Branstad. In February 1992, as he grappled with that year's recession and budget crisis, only 37 percent of Iowans approved of his performance.

The economy was in much better shape by the time Branstad had to face voters in 1994. Culver's only got a year to turn things around. There's no guarantee unemployment will be falling by then, especially if President Obama decides to act like Herbert Hoover during the next year. Iowa's unemployment rate, though low by nationwide standards, is the highest it's been since the mid-1980s.

The only good thing I can say about this poll is that it may convince conservative Republicans that Vander Plaats can win the general election. During the summer, Branstad looked like a hail-mary pass for the GOP.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that Research 2000 found much better numbers for Culver a month ago. Either the budget situation has caused his approval to nosedive in the past month, or one of these polls is an outlier. Unfortunately, I wouldn't bet on a Selzer poll being an outlier in Iowa.

Rasmussen's Iowa poll from September found numbers similar to what Selzer found last week.

SECOND UPDATE: I agree with Tom Beaumont of the Des Moines Register:

Culver has kept up an optimistic tone, predicting Iowa will emerge from the recession in better economic health than most states. Several key statistics show Iowa's overall economy and its state government have weathered the tough times better than other states. A report issued last week by the Pew Center on the States ranked Iowa as tied for second among states in terms of fiscal health.

But that message isn't registering with Iowans.

That Pew report gave Iowa good marks for money-management practices, and put Iowa in the group of states "least like California" in terms of budget problems, but I don't know how Culver can get that message across. Republicans have simple talking points: budget problems = Culver incompetence.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

IA-Gov: New Register poll has bad news for Culver | 142 comments
Do people need any more evidence
that there's going to be a big shakeup next fall?
if Obama decides tackling the deficit
is more important than spending money to create jobs, he's not as smart as I thought he was.
[ Parent ]
It's hard to believe
that they're actually entertaining that idea. Maybe it's BS for the "responsible" editorial page writers.

But hey, if they want 15% unemployment and a Republican supermajority in the House, this is a great way to start!  

[ Parent ]
I find it hard to believe
that there are people who think ignoring the deficit is a good idea. I mean talk about being blind to reality.

It's one thing to argue he can't do both, but to say the deficit doesn't make a difference is ridiculous, it's a HUGE issue for independents.

When the economy starts to improve, the deficit will sink Democrats if they don't get in front of the issue.  

[ Parent ]
See my response below

[ Parent ]
The deficit is irrelevant
If the GOP attacks on that, you simply blame Bush.  And you do it over and over again.  Even if it doubles, who cares, you blame Bush.

The three most important issues in 2010 are jobs, jobs, and jobs.  Forget the deficit.  

The Democrats need to make Bush the issue in 2010.  

[ Parent ]
What you haven't answered
is how do yo respond to "Well, why haven't you fixed it"

Blaming Bush for the deficit only works if you've taken intiative to show you care about fixing the problem.

[ Parent ]
Stop saying that please
I provided links yesterday that made it clear administration officials know what they are doing and realise how important it is to concentrate on jobs. If you read the likes of OpenLeft too much you believe the worst too much. And it is foolish to believe the deficit has no bearing on voters. The polls are clear on that no matter what Bowers says.
[ Parent ]
Now there's a slight of hand
Yes, people care about the deficit in the abstract. But if people have to choose between their job or quality of life and reducing the deficit, they'll choose the former every time.  
[ Parent ]
Well regardless
I think it is time for the Dems to bring out their hero that led them to victory in 2006 and 2008.

George W Bush.

[ Parent ]
Can't keep going to that well
Relevant yes but Obama and the Dems own much of this now and much more so a year from now.
[ Parent ]
I disagree
The Democrats trotted out Herbert Hoover over and over again for years after the Great Depression.  Harry Truman in 1948 mentioned Herbert Hoover sixteen times in a major stump speech.

George W Bush was just as disliked by the public, and I think the Dems can keep connecting GOP opposition to George Bush.  

[ Parent ]
The problem is
that you can't run against Bush/Hoover economics when you're about to embark on an austerity campaign.

The Democrats need to get some real achievements under their belts--yesterday. And to the extent this recession was prolonged by insufficient stimulus last spring, the people who will be hit hardest by that are the very conservative Democrats who held out for a smaller package.

[ Parent ]
I agree with that
this is why I said earlier this year that health care should have been pushed back until 2011.  The economy and starting a green energy boom with or without cap-and-trade should have been priority number one.
FDR didn't push Social Security and the Wagner Act until 1935.

But as far as deficits, and for that matter the economy in general, I would trot out Bush and tie the GOP to him repeatedly.  People need to be reminded and reminded over and over again, who created this mess, and that you don't put those who created the mess to fix it.

[ Parent ]
Healthcare could easily have been sold
under the recovery rubric. But in my opinion everything about the way the Administration sold healthcare was wrong. We got a preview of how that would go in the way they gave away the store on the stimulus.

[ Parent ]
I totally agree
They gave away the store on the stimulus, and it's made the unemployment problem worse. $90 billion wasted on fixing the alternative minimum tax--just think of what that amount of money could have done if it had been targeted effectively to create jobs.
[ Parent ]
The money "wasted" on taxes
was demanded by the 3 Republicans whose votes to pass the recovery act were essential.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
I agree that Collins, Snowe, and Specter
would have demanded concessions in any case. But the bottom line is that the Administration started out with a package that was too small and ended up with one that was way to small. If they had proposed, say, $5T, they could have negotiated down to a "reasonable" level and the package would have been big enough.  
[ Parent ]
If they had proposed $5T
that might have been outright rejected as unreasonable.  They might have blown a wad of political capital right out the window with that.

They should have started out at say 2-2.5 T.  

[ Parent ]
What was needed was about $3T in spending
on basically whatever. I do not agree that any number would have been rejected outright as unreasonable. It all depended on where the political process started.

Negotiations 101.

[ Parent ]
Suppose Obama in his first press conference
asked for a blank check $5 trillion dollar stimulus with the federal government having the entire power to distribute the money as they see fit.

What kind of reaction do you think the country would have given?

[ Parent ]
Obviously that's the extreme example
But in reality, I think that would have been better than what he actually did. I think the blue dogs and President Snowe would have gotten their victory: in the $3T package. Remember, it was "reasonable" to talk about passing a big stimulus at the time.
[ Parent ]
"big" was seen as
double the stimulus that was passed.  Paul Krugman called for a stimulus of about $1.6-2 T.  Few if any, were calling for a stimulus of 3-5 T.  Everyone underestimated the depth of the recession.

But I think more important was having federal control over the stimulus.  We should have done what LBJ would have done, that is starve the GOP areas, and direct all the stimulus money to those who voted for the stimulus.  If certain areas want to use Jim Demint rhetoric, we should have given them Jim DeMint policies.

[ Parent ]
I believe Krugman was talking about $3T
And really, to say that no one predicted the depth of this recession is just wrong.

As for starving the GOP areas. . .lots of Democrats there too.  

[ Parent ]
I haven't yet found an article with Krugman's
number.  But regardless, we needed more than just a bigger stimulus.

The biggest long term economic problem, IMO, is not the loss of jobs.  It is personal debt.  From the housing sector to college loans, to credit cards, personal debt is killing the consumer economy.  

There should have been a push to eliminate some of this personal debt, things like mortgage cramdown, some plan to eliminate college debt, a stronger credit card bill, etc.  Heck, I would have pushed for bank nationalization so lending could have been directed from the government directly.

And such an agenda would have taken a lot of political capital and the elimination of the filibuster.  And to do that you have to delay health care.

Here's what should have been done.

1. Bigger stimulus, but done in a manner that you don't compromise with Snowe/Collins/Specter/Nelson/Lieberman, and use that to brand the GOP as obstructionists/Wall Street lackeys and thus justify eliminating the filibuster.

2. Push the remainder of the middle class agenda, mortgage cramdown, college debt forgiveness, financial regulation with teeth, and credit card reform and forgiveness.

3. Pass a massive green jobs bill that would extend what had already been included in the stimulus, with or without cap-and-trade.  Preferably without, because you should just use the EPA to regulate CO2.

4. EFCA- Give your base something to be excited about.

Then having delivered an economy for the middle class and real reform, you pick up seats in the Senate in 2010 and fight the health care battle in 2011.  

[ Parent ]
As far as pleasing the base goes,
I don't think EFCA is anywhere near as exciting as healthcare. Most people probably couldn't tell you what it does.

Healthcare had to happen this year in some way or another, but cramdown and a bigger stimulus were not mutually exclusive.  

[ Parent ]
A bigger stimulus you might have gotten
but the rest of my ideas weren't going to get through a filibuster.  The financial industry and their lobbyists have just too much influence.  You had to get rid of the filibuster first.

[ Parent ]
No
because the price wasn't really in question, it was the makeup of it.

A $5 trillion package wouldn't have been any better if 30% of it was still tax cuts, or what do you do when the stipulation for these deciding votes are "under a trillion dollars"

[ Parent ]
The Administration "gave away the store"?
I suppose that argument might have some kind of slight electoral relevance in keeping away disaffected liberals, but I'd call them mistaken. We all know that bill needed 3 Republicans' votes in the Senate, and it's those senators and a few right-wing Democrats who whittled down the spending in the bill.

I'm not sure whether you have a better plan than the Administration on how to effectively prod Congress into passing important legislation, but we do know that: (A) he can get very little Republican support for anything; (B) there are always x-number of Democrats who are either unduly influenced by money from particular industries or/and believe that voting for Democratic priorities will damage their reelection prospects. So despite the theoretical large Democratic majorities in both Houses and the President's solid electoral mandate last year, that's a difficult environment to try to get powerful groundbreaking legislation through.

The real problem is that there's a difference between the bird's eye and worm's eye view, and while the worm's eye view of particular skittish Democrats may be to think that their own electoral prospects are better if they vote against important legislation, the bird's eye view is, if much-needed legislation fails or is weakened because of their opposition, things will suck and their reelection will be threatened by an angry national climate.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
Could you have passed the stimulus
through reconciliation?  
If not, the Dems should have threatened the nuclear option of removing the filibuster to get the stimulus through.

Since this is a political site, I'll explain the politics of this.  I think the nuclear option would backfire against the Dems on any issue except the economy.  If the Dems had used the stimulus to use the nuclear option, the public would have backed them on it.

[ Parent ]
No
because it wasn't filibustered...since the stimulus spend on a deficit, was not deficit neutral, it needed 60 votes to pass...it's in a clause to a 1970's Budget Act.  
[ Parent ]
Then maybe the nuclear option
should have been invoked to suspend that clause.
[ Parent ]
You can't
you have to actually repeal the law that allows for it.  
[ Parent ]
Uh, the Senate makes its own rules
and it can change its rules without permission from the House or the President.  
[ Parent ]
It's not a rule
it's written into law

here;

http://www.congressmatters.com...

[ Parent ]
Congress can claim repeal that part of the law
in the stimulus bill.  Or officially claim that this bill doesn't count as a deficit.

If there is a will, there is a way.

[ Parent ]
what?
How can you claim this bill doesn't count as a deficit? If the spending in the bill increases the deficit, it's subject to that point of order.

and repealing it is nice and all, but until you repeal it, the point of order is allowed, so you would need to get 60 votes to repeal the whole thing anyway if it was in the stimulus.


[ Parent ]
You nuke on the point of order
If the point of order is made, then you hold a vote to overrule the parliamentarian with a majority vote.
[ Parent ]
The filibuster
I was under the impression that it would only require a sinple majority to nuke the filibuster.  Or could the filibuster get filibustered?
[ Parent ]
I think changes of Senate rules
have to be approved by simple majority vote at the beginning of each session, but I can't find any quick confirmation of that. Can anyone confirm or refute?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Wait exlpain
Explain why the Demcorat congress can't pass a bill that increases the deficit using reconciliation but a Republican congress earlier this decade could?
Does the "law" say only Republicans get to use reconciliation?
[ Parent ]
A bill was passed in the interim
n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
I don't think so on Reconciliation
because it increased the deficit (by design).

Interesting about the nuclear option, but there could have been adverse consequences of other types, such as possibly less willingness by marginal Democrats and Republicans to support any other Administration- or leadership-initiated bill. I believe the nuclear option was considered and quickly discarded as too dangerous for the future. Whether that was politically wise or not is hard to say, because so many imponderables would be involved it's hard to know where things would have ended up years hence.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter
but there could have been adverse consequences of other types, such as possibly less willingness by marginal Democrats and Republicans to support any other Administration- or leadership-initiated bill.

There are 50 votes that can pretty easily be rounded up for almost any major administration legislation.

[ Parent ]
Yes, if you want to abolish the filibuster for all time
n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
I do
The filibuster is a completely anti-democratic and worthless delay tactic.  It is especially unfair in a chamber that gives unequal representation by population, and gives a small number of special interests undue power.

Every major liberal politician in the 20th century wanted to get rid of this worthless rule.  

To be honest, I was secretly hoping that the GOP would be successful in getting rid of judicial filibusters in 2005. Because I felt that with that precedent taken care of, the Dems would be justified in eliminating the entire filibuster in the future.

[ Parent ]
I understand and respect your position
n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
No no no
Health care reform always had to be done in the first two years.  We have 60 votes, something unlikely to be had for the rest of Obama's 6 years as President.  Health care would have to be watered down severely to get passed after 2010.  Health care is also an urgent issue killing American families.  It's now or never.

As for deficits, people may claim they care about them but in reality it doesn't matter.  People care whether they have a good job and inflation is under control.  In reality very few people understand or care about some mythical deficit number.  

[ Parent ]
Exactly
I said a year ago that the Administration should have put together an "everything" package to pass in the first hundred days. A legislative blitzkrieg was in order. But they mostly pissed away the first 5 months.  
[ Parent ]
You can't do health care
that fast.  The legislation is too complex.  
[ Parent ]
No it is not.
Pretty much all the time we've spent on health care has been trying to win over Republicans who will never support it, and trying to appease Democrats who are idiots/corrupt.
I agree Obama/congress should of done "any everything bill" and rushed it through reconciliation.
[ Parent ]
I had a really long response, but I, being stupid, closed out the window
This is my abridged version:

1. Reconciliation is limited to only some parts of the bill.

2. Senate parliamentarian could strip public option which would require 60 votes to put it back in (which we don't have, period).

3. The following Senators would definitely vote against such a measure: Ben Nelson, Landrieu, Pryor, Lincoln, Lieberman, and Bayh (not even bothering to mention losing any prayer of getting Snowe or Collins).

4. The following Senators would be at very high risk of voting against it in this manner: Byrd, Warner, Carper, Bill Nelson, Hagan, and Shaheen.

5. The follwing Senators are not guaranteed to vote for it: Feinstein, Baucus, and Conrad.

Basically, you've got only 46 guaranteed votes (and that's if there aren't a few others who might get antsy like Dorgan or Johnson, or maybe even someone no one thought of like Begich) and on top of that, 11 or so of them are either guaranteed to vote against it or are extremely likely to vote against it (and failing this way would really kill Obama's chances for doing anything else of any importance until after the midterms).

Oh and two more things:

1. The kabuki theatre of appearing bipartisan is actually pretty damn smart, as it has allowed Obama to frame the whole issue as the Republicans being completely unreasonable and has given Obama and the Democrats the ability to shut the Republicans completely out of the picture (this has all been about convincing moderate Dems to vote for the bill, which is necessary, despite all the complaints from some people on the left about how Obama hasn't punched Ben Nelson in the face or something). Obama's not a stupid politician, he wasn't during the primary, he wasn't during the general, and guess what? He isn't now, he's quite adept at this, and understands what it takes to get stuff through. This is not to say that he hasn't made a few mistakes along the way (the arbitrary $900 billion price tag that has stuck to the bill is an example of this) but generally he's handled it fairly well (one potentially large tactical mistake that has been made, by Senate Leader Reid at the prodding of people on our side of the debate, was the decision to try to pass a public option in the Senate before going to conference, because if it fails in the Senate now, it probably will be dead in the final bill).

2. The one who was wasting all this time on trying to appease Republicans here was the senior Senator from Montana, so if you have a problem with it, you should take it up with him (especially considering that the four other relevant committees passed their bills long before the Finance Committee did).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
You've misunderstood the role
of the Parliamentarian. He works for the majority, and can be dismissed by them.  
[ Parent ]
This parliamentarian was appointed by Trent Lott
And, point in fact, the position itself is generally viewed by senators as being fairly nonpartisan (hell, Republicans were praising this guy as being pretty even handed).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
Not responsive to my point
First, the majority is not constrained to follow the diktat of the Parliamentarian (whose opinion would in any case have to be introduced into the proceedings by the chair). And second, in principle the majority has absolute control over the Parliamentarian. You will recall that the Republicans really did fire the previous one over a similar dispute.  

Of course, IOKIYAR, so we shouldn't expect the Democrats to actually bring any of this up.

[ Parent ]
Moreover, nobody believes
that the public option is a non-budget item.  
[ Parent ]
Never said that it was a non-budget item
I'm talking about regulatory issues that are not budget items (such as regulations requiring insurers to not discriminate about people with pre-existing conditions).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
Personally, I consider everything but the public option
to be nonintersting as a matter of reform. Indeed, it is my opinion that none of the other reforms are likely to be effective without one.

Unlike others (cough, Ezra Klein, cough), I do not think that the subsidies constitute "reform" in any meaningful sense.

[ Parent ]
You and I are going to have to disagree
Because I actually do mostly agree with what Ezra Klein is saying (particularly about the public option, considering that it's not tied to Medicare rates in any form at the moment).

Either way, I don't want to get into a huge policy fight here, I'll go to Dkos for that.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
but they haven't fixed it, that's the problem
yeah Bush created the mess, but what you're response when voters ask "What are you doing to fix it?"
[ Parent ]
I'd say it is impossible
to fix a mess three decades in the making in a 2 year time span, let alone a 6 month one.
[ Parent ]
Not so much "last spring"
Most of the stimulus doesn't even get spent for years and the jobs bill will be far too late to affect 2010.  They should have passed both in early 2009 and had the bulk of spending by year end 2009/early 2010.
[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure
Bush bashing may still have some legs even in 2010.  I saw a poll recently where Americans by something like 2-1 still blame Bush for the current economy.  I'd still plaster Dubya all over TV if I were running in 2010 as a reminder of what happens when republicans are in charge.  Especially in races where republicans are running Bushbots like Rob Portman, Roy Blunt, Steve Chabot, etc.  These people cannot hide from the fact they voted with Bush over 95% of the time when he was Prez.
[ Parent ]
Sure
Individual cases certainly. But you need more than that. It will only work for so long.  
[ Parent ]
I disagree again
I think you can use Bush to buy yourself more time.  Of course if the economy is horrible in 2012, no amount of Bush bashing will help Obama.  But in 2010, I think an anti-Bush campaign will help Democrats greatly outside the South (where Bush may still be popular).
[ Parent ]
I didn't say don't use Bush
I said he is relevant. What I said is you need to explain things better when you have had Congress for four years and everything for two.
[ Parent ]
Um that's easy
it takes more than two years to fix the complete destruction of the country that George W Bush presided over.

[ Parent ]
Yes
but you need to show signs of fixing. If the government is able to, at the very least, stop the deficit from rising, that would be enough for them to trot out and say "Hey, I know the deficits are still high, but they're not growing. We inherited a large deficit from the last guy, who btw also tanked the economy, and we were able to govern the country without massively increasing the deficit and we did it all while fixing the economy, creating jobs, and give you healthcare, clean energy, etc."

[ Parent ]
Signs of fixing?
Wouldn't that include an end to a recession that started off worse then the Great Depression?
The deficit is already on the down slope; 2009 will have the biggest deficit its only down and stagnated from here.
The biggests reason the Democrats won't have enough "jobs, health care, clean energy, etc," fixes to point out is because a quarter of Democrats are under the impression that it is better to not be liberal then to fix the economy.
[ Parent ]
If that's true
it's a good explanation for why they will lose in 2010. Note: I'm not saying they will lose; I'm saying if they are "under the impression that it is better to not be liberal then to fix the economy," they will lose and deserve it (not that the Republicans will deserve to win; they WON'T and will win by default).

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Obama is safe in 2012
2010 is a different story.  
[ Parent ]
Exactly
Obama's vast coalition that elected him in 2008 will be there in an even bigger way in 2012, barring some unforseen circumstance.  Simple demographics make it a near impossibility for someone like Gingrich, Palin or Romney to beat Obama three years from now.  Just watch, immigration reform will come up before 2012 and as expected republicans will look like bigots in viciously opposing it, further driving Hispanics to the left.  Blacks and young people will once again show up in massive numbers to re-elect Obama in 2012.

But ya 2010... ugg...  If Dems hold house losses to <20 and Senate losses to <3 I'll be happy.  Governor's races are another wildcard.  

[ Parent ]
We need to get our base out
if we do, we'll do fine outside the South.  Obama is still polling in the 60s if you remove the South.

In the South, well, we'll just have to take the brunt of a GOP tsunami.

[ Parent ]
Problem is motivation
Unfortunately it feels like Dems have become complacent.  They feel like they elected their guy (Obama) for four years and are sitting pretty.  You'd be surprised at the ignorance of many people.  I know people who actually think Congressmen get voted in every four years like the President...
[ Parent ]
Yeah I know
which is another reason to trot out our secret weapon, George W Bush.
[ Parent ]
Mixed picture in the South
[ Parent ]
I don't believe any poll
that puts Obama +5 in the South.  He is no better than -15 there.
[ Parent ]
This goes to Jsmith's comment
about if you remove the South, Obama's approval ratings would be in the 60's or something.

Now that is a damn good point I've never considered, which is odd considering how many polls Kos has done highlighting how the South thinks so much more differently on Obama.

[ Parent ]
Are there other polls confirming the regional split in Obama popularity?
It's definitely been a theme of the R2K poll - but last I checked, Gallup doesn't show more than a minor regional split.
[ Parent ]
Bush bashing will only work
if there is some progress on all the things Bush is blamed for; economy, deficits, war. That's why Hoover bashing was successfull, because Democrats had success in cleaning up his mess.

Otherwise it's "Bush screwed it up and Obama has done nothing to fix it, except blame Bush more"


[ Parent ]
As long as Obama can present some progress
attacking Bush will work.  Some progress includes a stimulus plan, health care reform, and a decision to put more troops in Afghanistan.  That will be sufficient.

The rest of the job will be to savage Bush and the GOP.  The Dems need to come up with some good attack ads and some good lines to attach Bush to the teabaggers to the GOP.

[ Parent ]
Don't think it'll work
Sorry, but I just don't. If running against Bush still worked, Corzine would have been re-elected in a landslide.  
[ Parent ]
I agree
Here is a more balanced article to which I made referance too.

http://www.politico.com/news/s...

Orzsag is particularly clear the priority is jobs.

[ Parent ]
Ugh, that looks terrible
Don't these guys understand what happened in 1937?
[ Parent ]
Sigh
Are we reading the same article?

"...focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 - and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs"

"The President strongly believes that as the recovery strengthens and job growth returns, we will have to take the tough steps necessary to return our nation to a fiscally disciplined and sustainable path."

"Our challenge is to tackle those out-year deficits in a way and at a time that does not choke off economic recovery".

"For starters, the White House has not dropped plans for an aggressive global warming bill early next year that will be loaded with new spending on green technology and jobs - that would be paid for with tax increases."

"Former President Bill Clinton told Senate Democrats at their policy lunch this week that one of the biggest reasons to finish health care is to allow Obama to focus on economic concerns next year - in part with more spending. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said afterward that Clinton had advised getting health care out of the way to "clear the tables and allow the focus to be on jobs and education and infrastructure." None of that is free."

"The President and his team are constantly reviewing and assessing policies to create jobs, lay the foundation for long-term economic growth, and put the nation on firm fiscal footing."

"Some White House officials do not want to focus on deficits until it's clear the economy is in full recovery. It could take another jolt of tax cuts or spending to make that happen, these officials say."

[ Parent ]
If they are not actually going to
focus on the deficit (and if they want a recovery they absolutely should not), they should NOT DISCUSS THE DEFICIT. Pretending that the recovery is anything by vaguely incipient is politically very dangerous. But this is the administration that overpromises and underdelivers--a very dangerous combination in politics.  
[ Parent ]
Moving on

[ Parent ]
Do you not get
how much of a albatross the deficit is to Democrats at the moment with Independents?  
[ Parent ]
Do you?
I'll bet you any amount of money that if we were to take a poll, almost no one could say what the size of the deficit is now, let alone what it was a year ago. Now, the "deficit" is probably just a cypher for some other nagging money-related concern, but I guarantee you that none of those natterers would be satisfied if, for example, we raised taxes to "pay for it."

Do lots of "independents" have a concern that there's too much spending? Yeah, probably. But do you think they would be happier and more likely to vote for Democrats if the spending stopped and we allowed for a natural "correction?" If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you.  

[ Parent ]
Agreed
The deficit hawking is BS.  Noone cares about it in reality.  Substitute the word jobs or inflation for deficit and people do care.
[ Parent ]
As I said above
for those who the deficit is the # 1 priority will be voting GOP anyway.  

There is a name for those "independents".  Teabaggers.

[ Parent ]
I sure hope not
because that would make the teabaggers the deciding factor in elections
[ Parent ]
they don't decide elections
except in the South.  The only people who consider the deficit the primary issue are those who are hurling epithets at Obama in the streets.

Others may consider the deficit important, but by no means the primary issue.

[ Parent ]
Tell that to Governor-elect Christie

[ Parent ]
Had nothing to do with it
Corzine was ridiculously unpopular well before even this year.  He should have been replaced.

But Corzine could have still won had he started with a scorched earth negative campaign at the very beginning of the year.  Corzine should have run against George W Bush from the very beginning.  And he should have done something to get the Democratic base out, who didn't show up anywhere in 2009.

[ Parent ]
Property taxes
Indirectly it's a deficit issue, but it wasn't budget balancing that killed Corzine, but how New Jersey does it.  Without the property tax issue, Corzine would have won fairly comfortably, IMHO.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
I hope the property tax issue takes down Perry here in 2nd-highest-rate-in-the-country TX.


My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
WTF
Are you serious?  How do Texas legislators get away with having the 2nd highest property tax rates in the country?  Even higher than those northeastern states is hard to believe.
[ Parent ]
No income taxes in Texas
regressivity in action.
[ Parent ]
Same in Florida
But we still have relatively low proterty taxes and sales tax (6.5%).  Tourism makes up for a lot.
[ Parent ]
Which corporats love.
So they can come here and claim that this state is business-friendly, citing Texas's status as having more Fortune 500 companies here than any other state, and the budget surplus (which has long since evaporated to the point that Perry had to go begging to the Feds for cash) and the relatively low unemployment rate (which has been climbing thanks to Texas losing more jobs than "business-unfriendly" California and Michigan in August and September).

Ten of TX's GOP representatives have endorsed KBH. Probably the most priceless line comes from Kenny Marchant.

"After 10 years, I feel it's time for some change."

ROFLMAO!!! I'd love to see teabaggers challenge these 10 reps!

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

[ Parent ]
I agree with Kenny Merchant
I think the change should come in the general election.
[ Parent ]
The voters who think reducing the deficit
is the fundamental priority are the voters who will be voting GOP no matter what.
[ Parent ]
don't be so sure
There are a lot of deficit hawks in the Democratic Party.
[ Parent ]
Ya
I don't read Open Left too much anymore.  The Obama bashing has grown out of control.
[ Parent ]
I don't read it at all
Even Daily Kos is more reasonable.
[ Parent ]
I still like Kos for the most part
His beatdown of Tom Tancredo last week was pure epic.  Kos is great at calling out chickenhawks.  I sure hope Tancredo does run for Governor.  That's one guy who Ritter can crush.

Though I thought Kos did lose some credibility with his weird support for Scozzafava in NY-23.  For all the talk about Owens being a conservative he voted for health care reform.  Something Scozafava would not have if she won that race.

[ Parent ]
We need more beatdowns like Markos can give......
Markos' political analysis is often lacking, the latest example being his early comments on NY-23 that he was "rooting" for Scozzafava based on quite a twist in mental gymnastics.

But we NEED more people who will CALL OUT wingnuts TO THEIR FACES, it only helps.  Any non-partisan person who watches Markos' beat down of Tancredo MIGHT view it as rude but DEFINITELY concedes the merits, especially with Tancredo storming off like a baby instead of having a response.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Hey You're Back!
We were wondering where you were.
[ Parent ]
Open Left
I agree, virtually every post is hitting him from the left.

MyDD isn't much better with posts hitting him from the left AND right (Jerome).

I'm all for holding Democrats accountable, but I hardly ever see anything positive from either site about Obama or Democrats.

29/D/Male/NY-01

[ Parent ]
not true at all for MyDD
Jonathan Singer, Nathan Empsall and Charles Lemos all post positive stories about Obama from time to time.

Open Left would be a lot more positive toward Obama if he pursued different economic policy priorities. Don't blame the messenger. It would be pretty blatant hackery for the Open Left bloggers to make excuses for what Rahm/Geithner/Summers are doing on the economic front.

[ Parent ]
Agree on MyDD, those other frontpagers are why...
...I still go there all the time.  And Breaking Blue can be good, although it's been much less active and interesting this year likely for the obvious reason that it's an off-year.

But Jerome very obviously has a big axe to grind that Obama was the Democratic nominee.  And it's very petty and immature of him.  His diaries and comments over time don't reveal any coherent reason for it.  At times it seems Obama isn't "progressive enough," but that falls down when considering he never made simimlar complaints last year about Hillary who he favored over Obama, or Warner who clearly is to Obama's right and Jerome contemplated working for him or did work for him (can't remember which).  I don't even remember who Jerome's first choice was heading into Iowa, maybe Edwards, but frankly no one could be argued to be more liberal than Obama in the primaries.  So ultimately I have to conclude Jerome just has a hurt personal ego somehow from having been wrong in thinking Obama couldn't win or from Obama beating someone he liked more.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Obama was obviously not the most liberal
during the primaries. He was pretty much the same as Hillary, so his pursuit of Clintonomics 2.0 is no surprise.

Jerome didn't endorse before the Iowa caucuses, but he seemed to favor Edwards. He picked Hillary over Obama because he (wrongly) thought Obama would lose to McCain. He doesn't particularly care for Obama's policy priorities, and neither do a lot of other progressives. He thinks escalating in Afghanistan and continuing the bank bailout policies are mistakes, but you can only see personal ego in that?

A lot of Iowa Democrats don't like Culver, but I don't accuse them all of having an ego problem because they favored Ed Fallon or Mike Blouin in the 2006 primary.

[ Parent ]
Do you even read Jerome's work???......
Jerome is attacking Obama for an escalation in Afghanistan that HASN'T HAPPENED.  The most recent thing reportedly to have actually happened is Obama rejecting all the proposals for lack of a clear end game.  Jerome posted recently attacking Obama for not announcing a 40,000-troop increase last year and then doing it this year, as some sort of dishonesty, when in fact Obama promised nothing in particular regarding Afghanistan last year and hasn't decided anything this year except a modest troop hike early this year that liberals by and large didn't complain about.

Jerome made a point all last year during the campaign making digs against Obama almost everytime he posted, revealing a thinly-veiled hope Obama would lose just so Jerome could be proved right.  The day before the election when every poll saw Obama leading in the high single digits, Jerome went out of his way to promote a Republican pollster's work asserting a one-point race.

And regarding who is "more liberal," I wasn't suggesting Obama was more liberal than the others, but rather simply that he wasn't any less liberal than the others.  Frankly, they were all in the same ballpark ideologically.  Edwards had the most fiery rhetoric, but that was meaningless because he also often bucked the liberal line as a Senator--it was easy to breathe fire as a private citizen who doesn't have to answer to actual constituents, which was his situation in 2007-08.  Kucinich was to everyone's left, but he doesn't count because he was never a serious choice.

None of us gets everything we want in our own party's leaders.  I myself have been disappointed with a few of Obama's decisions.  But I EXPECT any Democratic President to eventually say or do something with which I strongly disagree.  I don't agree with everyone on these blogs on everything, and we're all part of the Democratic base.  Our leaders have to answer to a lot more people than just their most loyal supporters, that's what democracy is about.  So criticism on specific issues is fine as long as it's fair and accurate, but if you're a Democrat who can't be supportive overall of Obama after all he's done and committed to trying to do in just 9 months in office, you're either not living in reality or you have a personal axe to grind.

But Jerome can do nothing but criticize at every turn.

The totality of Jerome's commentary about Obama over the past couple years reveals very clearly a neverending resentment that just doesn't make ideological or policy sense for a guy who at one point was supporting Mark Warner, who clearly was to Obama's right.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Jerome is a bitter petulant child
he was noticeably quiet on opposing escalation last year in Afghanistan and he was noticeably quiet on Clintonomics as well...that is until Obama won the primary.

[ Parent ]
Both Kucinich and Edwards were more liberal
An argument can be made that Hillary was also more liberal in some of her proposals, though she eventually tried to win with some right-wing rhetoric.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Edwards?
I call bullshit on that one, Edwards talked a good game, but he was a fairly moderate Senator, and nearly all of the specific policy proposals he advocated during the campaign were almost completely identical to either Obama or Clinton.

And how exactly was Hillary Clinton more liberal than Obama? Are you talking about her proposal to suspend the gas tax? Or maybe you're referring to her surprisingly hardline view on suspending the embargo we have with Cuba? This argument is fairly easily debunked by looking at the facts.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
OK, this is olds (not news), but
I'm talking about Edwards' 2008 campaign, not his record in the Senate. I can't quote you chapter and verse on his campaign planks, but he sure did sound more liberal and militant to me in 2008, always talking about union rights, workers' rights, and universal health care. Whether that was just political opportunism is another question. And the one important way in which Hillary Clinton could be argued to have been more liberal than Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign was health care. Krugman made the argument at the time. After Hillary was defeated, Obama took more of the ideas she had been presenting for his own.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
All three of them talked about unions, workers' rights, and universal health care
And sounding more liberal is not the same as actually being more liberal with policy initiatives. I can say "unions are wonderful" or "everyone should have health coverage" forever and a day, but that doesn't actually mean that the proposals I have for achieving them are particularly progressive (Dennis Kucinich might be an ego-maniac, but his proposals really were to the left of everyone, since he was actually proposing single-payer, which Edwards never did nor even came close to embracing).

I'm not entirely sure how Hillary Clinton's health care plan could be considered "more liberal" than Obama's, considering that the only actual difference between the two was the inclusion of mandating insurance coverage, which is certainly not clear-cut "more liberal" than not having the mandate.

As to Paul Krugman, when Obama first introduced his health care proposal in mid-to-late 2007, Krugman was actually pretty complimentary about it (which is why I never really took anything he wrote later on concerning it all that seriously). Honestly, Krugman was one of those Edwards supporters who seemed to blame Obama for Edwards being forced out of the race (never mind the fact that if Obama hadn't been in the race, Clinton would've steamed rolled Edwards during the primaries anyways).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
I remember Krugman being a Clinton supporter
I don't remember him being an Edwards supporter, but I'll definitely take your word for it.

For the record, I've voted for Kucinich in the primaries every chance I've gotten, but by the time the 2008 primaries were in New York, it was Obama vs. Clinton, and I unhesitatingly voted for Obama, in large part because of Clinton's vote on the Iraq War, and also how she was conducting the campaign (the right-wing pandering you spoke about in a previous post). I fear we're getting too far off topic now, though, so I think I'd better bow out.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
hmm disagree there
I didn't support Obama during the primaries because I didn't think he was the most liberal of the main options, and was very comfortable arguing that his rhetoric and some of his positions were to Clinton's right. Don't want to go there now, cause, well, it's been 2 years (!), but just want to state it for the record.
[ Parent ]
OpenLeft would find any other reason to attack him
he could be bringing us communism and they'd find something to bitch about. That place is the haven for the PUMA and deadenders. They look for something to complain about. I mean look at the Quick hit attacking him for bowing to the Japanese emperor or the one basically endorsing Lou Dobbs for President.

[ Parent ]
that is ludicrous
Every Open Left front-pager supported Obama over Hillary during the primaries, but you depict it as a PUMA site.

That Quick Hit wasn't posted by any of the front-pagers.

Given the economic policy choices Obama has made, it's not surprising that people at Open Left criticize him. Incidentally, I think Democrats would be in a better position going into next year's elections if the Obama administration's economic policies looked more like what Open Left writers advocate.

[ Parent ]
Sad how Open Left front pagers attack commenters personally
(However, that's why I haven't been there for about a year, so if things changed, I wouldn't know about it.)

Nevertheless, it's true, they don't fall into the normal definition of PUMA - few if any were Hillary supporters.

OTOH, if PUMA is taken just by its words, then I think they fit - anyone with blue dog leanings might as well be Rs in their world.

If President Obama could have pushed though a bigger stimulus package, then I agree, Ds would be in a better position. But I believe that's a big "if".

[ Parent ]
Some people can't count votes......
Had Specter switched parties in January or early February instead of later, we could have had any stimulus bill we wanted.

But we had 57 Democrats plus Sanders and and an unreliable Lieberman in our caucus, and it's a modern reality that everyone votes no on cloture if they oppose the underlying bill.  There's nothing Obama can do about that.

It's the same thing with the health care bill, with all the complaints from the left, it's as if some people think Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu are just defective robots who need to be repaired, rather then human beings with freewill who don't agree with most of us on liberal blogs and/or need to keep the peace with a LOT of voters who disagree strongly with most of us on liberal blogs.  Pressure from the left is appropriate, it's the reason we got a public option in the House bill, and it's the reason Harry Reid at least is TRYING for a public option with an opt-out in the Senate bill.  But at the end of the day every Senate Democratic Caucus member will make up his/her own mind on what to do and can't be threatened very effectively.

What's killing us ultimately is that there are 4 New England seats that are not really ours, with the two in Maine plus Gregg plus Lieberman.  If only we had those 4, we'd REALLY be fine, able to jettison a few Democrats from conservative states and still get 60.  But Snowe and Collins are personally popular holdovers from yesteryear, Gregg isn't gone soon enough, Lieberman is there because Lamont ran such a horrible general election campaign.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Absolutely right - perhaps it is time to modify the fillibuster
First, DCC, you make some great points w/r/t our Senate blue dogs and the New England seats.

While I don't know if a "nuclear option" type of change is appropriate, having to get to 60 is nuts, IMO. It used to be 2/3 - and I think President Obama could get a few more things done if that number were further reduced to 55, say in the organizing resolution after the 2010 election.

[ Parent ]
Great minds think alike.....
I was thinking to myself just the other day that it would be nice if someday we could get cloture down to 55.

But I don't think they'll do it.

Democrats stopped Republicans on plenty of stuff earlier this decade because of cloture.  Indeed, there was plenty the Senate GOP never brought up because they never could sniff 60.  ANWR is one of the more high-profile examples.  And the fact the budget-busting and economically useless Dubya tax cuts are temporary instead of permanent comes from their having had to use reconciliation because they couldn't get to 60 on a permanent tax code change.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
the front pagers aren't the problems with that site

[ Parent ]
Ever see the language Sirota used against commenters?
Yes, he has been provoked in the past, but there is no excuse for his kinds of reactions on any major collective blog.  
[ Parent ]
Is Sirota still a front pager there?
Sirota likes to stir the pot, I don't think there ever will be a President he likes. I take him about as seriously as the crazy woman who screams on the corner.

but Bowers, Lux, they don't bother me. They have their criticisms, but even Bowers has found himself on the receiving end of the crazy on OpenLeft. A week or so ago there were a bunch of nuts attacking Bowers for punting on single payer healthcare.

[ Parent ]
While Bowers and Lux are fine
Rosenberg is an arrogant ... - well, while he's knowledgable, it's like you have to have a reading list to argue with him, else he gets personal with you - well, at least he did with me.
[ Parent ]
No
It didn't need this poll either.
[ Parent ]
If come next July...
...the unemployment rate has fallen, even if only slightly each time, several consecutive months, and GDP continues decent even if still only modest growth, and stocks have been showing modest (not necessarily rapid like recently)but steady gains, and a health care reform law was signed by Obama several (or many) months earlier, then there won't be as big a shakeup as everyone now appears to project.

And that's the scenario I'm still expecting.

We're still a loooooong way away from the midterms.  It's pretty rare for a status quo to continue for so long in politics.  In 2007 we were convinced Iraq would remain atop everyone's mind in 2008.  Well, it didn't, and the economy took over.

The only thing that stays the same in politics is that nothing stays the same.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
also, Branstad's still in a honeymoon period
He will get roughed up during the GOP primary, and there will be hurt feelings afterwards. I am hoping that the religious right will be angry and uninspired to GOTV for him. Or better yet, Branstad will do so poorly on the campaign trail that Republicans decide it's safe to nominate someone else. I don't believe for a second that BVP has a chance against Culver.

The sad thing is, if Culver had looked this vulnerable in the spring, the whole draft Branstad campaign never would have happened. Branstad ruled out running for governor in May, and the business elites wouldn't have worked hard to recruit him if they thought they could win with Rants.

[ Parent ]
What worries me about Culver is...
...he's getting hurt by one or two high-profile issues that are unique to Iowa today and not simply the function of a bad economy.  Culver needs not only the economy to improve, but also for negative sentiments built up from this film tax credit scandal to pass, not to mention something else that came up the past year that I thought was in the news???

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
Culver is a poor coalition-builder
He didn't do enough to mend fences after the 2006 election and make Democrats who backed Fallon and Blouin feel that they had a stake in his administration. He and the state legislative leaders haven't worked well together either, though there's blame on both sides for that one.

The activist base doesn't feel he has their back, and I'm concerned that they won't be out doing GOTV for him next year.

[ Parent ]
Is it a given that Culver is seeking re-election and
that no one can convince him not to? And, if so, is a primary challenge totally out of the question?  Just wondering if there are any other options out there.
[ Parent ]
no plan B
No primary challenger, no chance Culver won't run for re-election.

We need some things to improve next year and for Branstad to take some lumps during the campaign. His own record of fiscal management was horrendous, and voters haven't been reminded of that yet.

We also need to communicate somehow that Iowa is in better fiscal shape than many, many states and is weathering the challenging economy fairly well. The budget problems are not Culver's fault.

[ Parent ]
even if someone could convince Culver
not to run for re-election, I don't know who would have a better chance against Branstad anyway.
[ Parent ]
Obamas biggest mistake
was completely botching TARP and the finical industry. The loss opportunities on that will never stop disappointing.  
true
My friends in small business still can't get credit, and without credit they can't expand/hire people.
[ Parent ]
This is only confirming what I think will be the trend next year
Democrats will have a good year for senate seats and a horrible year for governors. Here are my current ratings.
Senate
Lean R
Grassley-IA
Reid-NV
Vitter-NV
Tossup
Burr-NC
KY Open
NH Open
Lean D
Bennett-CO
Dodd-CT
Lincoln-AR
DE Open
MO Open
OH Open (if Brunner wins)
Likely D
Specter-PA
Governor
Likely R
Culver-IA
AL Open
KS Open
TN Open
WY Open
Lean R
Gibbons-NV (Sandoval vs Reid)
Ritter-CO
MI Open
Tossup
Patrick-MA
Strickland-MA
GA Open
ME Open
PA Open
RI Open
Lean D
Brewer-AZ
CT Open
FL Open
MN Open
Likely D
Patterson-NY (if Cuomo runs)
WI Open
IA-Gov: New Register poll has bad news for Culver | 142 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox