1. Latest Sign of the Dempocalypse. CNN's generic ballot numbers are just rotten for Democrats. The GOP leads 52-45 among registered voters. Republicans even have a lead of 49-44 among "adults." Unfortunately, there are no cross-tabs breaking down support by party affiliation, but you can't produce numbers like this in a poll of registered voters without the Democrats getting crushed among Independent voters.
That, I think, will be one of the biggest stories of the 2010 midterm -- the bolt of the Independents from the Democratic coalition. Independents were pro-GOP in 2002, slightly Democratic in 2004, then strongly Democratic in 2006 and 2008. This year they are trending back toward the Republican Party.
Even the ABC News/WaPo poll, usually the best poll for Obama and the Democrats among the major outlets, puts the GOP at +2 among registered voters. Among likely voters, it's ... +13.
ABC News/WaPo has Republicans at +13?!
Meanwhile, Rasmussen has the GOP at +12 among likely voters in the generic ballot. Democrats and their pals in the media like to write Rasmussen off as a pro-GOP pollster, but that gets harder to do as the major pollsters are moving toward Rasmussen's results on both Obama's job approval and the generic ballot. Plus, Rasmussen has a not-so-friendly warning for Republicans:
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, notes that “voters are ready to deliver the same message in 2010 that they delivered in 2006 and 2008 as they prepare to vote against the party in power for the third straight election. These results suggest a fundamental rejection of both political parties.”
This is quite similar to points that Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen have made, and I think it is spot on. What's the template for the 2006-2010 cycles? I think it is something like the 1890s: There is great turmoil that the two political parties have been (so far) incapable of handling, and the public is still casting about in search of competent leadership. I think something similar happened between 1974 and 1982. The country is unsatisfied with the state of the nation and has so far disapproved of both parties' performances. But in a two party system, there is no choice but to swing back and forth until folks finds leaders who are up to the job.
2. Is All That Money Worth It? Typically, conventional Beltway wisdom holds that the candidate with the most money has the biggest advantage. Not so. As I've argued, what matters most is whether the challenger has raised enough money to introduce him/herself to the electorate. This piece from The Hill speaks to that point:
A handful of political experts tracking the 2010 election cycle say that incumbency has become enough of a liability this year to trump the conventional advantage of money in the bank.
Longtime campaigns and elections observer, Brookings Institute Vice-Chairman of Governance Studies Darrell West said “money cannot trump message.”
The analysts say that the message resonating this cycle has been: Throw the incumbents out...
Claremont-McKenna political science professor Jack Pitney said, “Victory doesn’t necessarily go to the candidate that spends the most. What matters is whether the challenger has enough resources to reach the voters, to get a message out, and those resources don’t have to be as great as their better financed candidate.”