Massachusetts:  When a Hunch Is Not a Poll

by John Zogby

You all know the story of the seven blind men and the elephant. It all depends what you feel and how you sense it. I have seen some blogs following my discussion on Sean Hannity’s Radio Show yesterday (January 18, linked above) where he asked what I “think” is going to happen in Massachusetts. I told  him I didn’t know. I don’t think that the polls that are out have gotten to measure the full impact of President’s visit. But I also think that the Democrats have a better get-out-the-vote operation. There are lots of variables but at the moment I thought Martha Coakley “might win” by less than a point.

That, my friends, is a hunch. I have not polled Massachusetts on this race and I have stated that Coakley has run an arrogant, aloof campaign – while Scott Brown has defied expectations.

In the full interests of truth: I have no idea what is going to happen. Actually no one does. Some have data that suggests – that often enough has been me. Others have no data and still suggest. This time that is me.

I am so proud of my record over the years. I am so gratified that so many people care what I think. But this particular time it is based on a hunch. We will see.

ZogbyFeaturedContributor elections politics

Most people expected 2010 to be an exciting election year, but few expected so much excitement barely two weeks into it. In a special Senate election in Massachusetts, one time Republican underdog, Scott Brown, appears to be catching up with the Democratic Party candidate, Martha Coakley for what used to be Senator’s Teddy Kennedy’s seat. According to many political analysts, the election is of enormous importance, because Republican win would take the crucial 60^th vote from the Democrats while likely demoralizing Democratic candidates in line to run in 10 months.

Special elections present specific polling challenges, because they make it more difficult to predict who will vote. In this case as well, pre-election polls vary wildly, though it appears that support for the Democratic candidate will be around 50%.

Have you tuned in to the election news yet or do you think it’s too early? Are you following the Massachusetts race?

Zeljka elections, politics

In this age of hyper-partisanship, winning elections requires a delicate balance of keeping the party base revved up while not alienating moderate voters who swing elections.

The recession and the unpopularity of former president George W. Bush made it easy for Democrats to achieve those goals and win both the White House and Congress. The 2010 midterm elections present a very different scenario and a more difficult challenge for the majority party.

Read all of John Zogby’s column at Forbes. com on why liberals may not work as hardfor Democrats  in 2010 as they did in 2008.

Paul John Zogby, elections, politics

So what did we learn from Tuesday’s elections? And what lessons should Democrats and Republicans draw from the results?

The big races resulted in Republican wins in the gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia, and the first win by a Democrat this century for the Congressional district that comprises most of northern New York State.

Read all of John Zogby’s take on Tuesday’s elections at Forbes.com.

Paul John Zogby, elections, politics elections, John Zogby, race, zogby

Just because Ben Bernanke says the recession is over doesn’t make it so. The chairman of the Federal Reserve may be technically correct that the economy is in recovery, but the average American is not impressed by slight upticks in the indicators.

The disconnect is enormous between Wall Street–where stock prices have improved and banks are prospering again and paying big bonuses–and Main Street, where unemployment levels frighten even those with jobs and discourage consumers from buying and going into further debt.

Read the rest of John Zogby’s column at Forbes.com, where he looks at the political ramifications of the economy and why “green” and high-tech jobs are good themes for politicians.

Paul economics, elections economy, employment, John Zogby, recession, zogby

Is the Obama Presidency changing our attitudes about race? A recent poll reported in the New York Times may shows that is happening.

According to the newspaper’s article on the NY Times/CBS News Poll: “Barack Obama’s presidency seems to be altering the public perception of race relations in the United States. Two-thirds of Americans now say race relations are generally good, and the percentage of blacks who say so has doubled since last July, according to the latest New York Times/ CBS News poll.

In Salon, Gary Kamiya writes: “We are a country used to talking endlessly about race but not doing anything about it. Obama is doing exactly the opposite. He is not talking about race, but that very fact, combined with his high popularity, has advanced racial harmony more than any utterance could do…But Obama’s silence about race, and the positive consequences of that silence, could also be the harbingers of a subtle but fundamental movement away from America’s dominant approach to race, one based on the idea that ‘we have to take race into account in order to get beyond it.’ “

However, Obama’s Attorney General and the nation’s first African-American to hold that post, Eric Holder, seemed to take the opposite tack when he said in February that we are “essentially a nation of cowards” when it comes to race relations. He, told Justice Department employees that “this nation has still not come to grips with its racial past” and suggested Black History Month could be used to spark more candid discussion of racial issues. “This will be, at first, a process that is both awkward and painful, but the rewards are, I believe, potentially great,” Mr. Holder said. “The alternative is to allow to continue the polite, restrained mixing that now passes as meaningful interaction but that in reality accomplishes very little.”

How has the Obama Presidency impacted race relations? Do his actions speak louder than words, or should we increase dialogue about race?

Paul culture, elections, politics, race history, Obama, politics, race, war

The hoopla over President Barack Obama’s 100th day in office was preempted on his 99th day, when Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania defected from the Republicans to the Democrats.

Specter was candid that one reason for the switch was the likely prospect of losing the 2010 GOP primary to former Rep. Pat Toomey, who was leading Specter in polls taken of an increasingly more conservative Republican electorate.

For some Republicans, Specter’s move raised alarm bells about the present and future course of the party. For others, it was good riddance to Specter and his less then conservative voting record.

Here is some of what Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine wrote in a New York Times op-ed: “It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of “Survivor” — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe. But it is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party.

“Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash.”

On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh, seen by some as the most influential voice among conservative Republicans, said: “A lot of people say, ‘Well, Specter, take [Sen. John] McCain with you. And his daughter [Meghan]. Take McCain and his daughter with you if you’re gonna…” he told listeners, dissolving in laughter.”…..It’s ultimately good. You’re weeding out people who aren’t really Republicans,” he said.

A recent Washington Post-ABC poll found 21% of Americans identify as Republicans, the lowest total that poll has found since September 1983.

What is the current state of the Republican Party? Is it more honest for a party to maintain ideological unity and give voters clear choices? Or should both parties include officeholders that hold views that can fit into either the Republican or Democratic tents?

Paul Uncategorized, elections, politics future, Obama, polls

People have a lot of things to be mad as Hell about, such as bleeding 401K accounts, job losses, bank bailouts, etc.  Now, we have A.I.G.’s plans to pay about $165 million in bonuses  to executives in the same business unit whose decisions led to the need for a bailout.

That is not the just rewards people were hoping for A.I.G, which has now received $170 billion in government bailouts. Back in a September, 2008, a Zogby Interactive poll , 83% believed that “those who participated in the unsound lending and investment practices that led to the current financial crisis should be held criminally responsible for their actions.” However, that poll found only 60% believing that they would be “held accountable.”

Observers see a “populist backlash” against banks and Wall Street, with politicians, most notably President Barack Obama, at risk of also becoming targets of this rage against the big money machine.

Obviously, the party in power has the most to risk, and is most likely to be blamed. However, given that the economy and the banking crises developed during the Bush Administration, and the voter perception that Republicans’ have been more closely aligned  with the wealthy, how much can the GOP expect to benefit from voter anger at the fat cats?

This may all just blow over if the economy and the markets rebound before the 2010 elections.  But what if they don’t? How should the Democrats and Republicans position to take advantage of this potential populist bubble?  Will the GOP turn to the mix of conservative religious values and economic concern for the common folks practiced by Mike Huckabee?  Will the Democratic left be empowered and push the party away from the liaisons that Bill Clinton and mainstream Dems have built with Wall Street?

Paul economics, elections, politics economy, elections, Obama, war, zogby

John McCain’s defeat in the Presidential election very likely closed out any possibility of a Vietnam veteran becoming President. He is, in fact, the third consecutive Vietnam vet to lose the Presidential election.

Al Gore served as an Army journalist in Vietnam, and John Kerry won a Purple Heart there commanding a swift boat. Both lost to George W. Bush, whose military service in the Air National Guard is perhaps best known for questions about whether his father’s influence helped him get in the Guard.

Bush and Bill Clinton are the only two members of the Baby Boom Vietnam generation to hold the White House. Clinton was assailed with charges of being a draft dodger during the 1992 campaign. Still, he defeated incumbent George H.W. Bush, who as a World War II Navy flier was shot down over the Pacific. Four years later, Clinton defeated Bob Dole, who suffered terrible wounds and life-long disabilities in World War II combat in Europe. Now comes the defeat of McCain, perhaps the politician most identified with Vietnam service due to his ordeal as a POW for five and a half years after being shot down in Vietnam.

So, in each of the past five Presidential elections, men who served in war zones of WWII or Vietnam has lost to someone who never had that experience.

In a Forbes.com column published in November 2008, John Zogby examined why Vietnam vets have been denied the White House. He cites Zogby International polling that found 53% of likely voters believed that a candidate’s military service was important in deciding their vote. However, in comparison to other wars of the past 60 years, Vietnam was held in the lowest regard as for its importance to security and success of the military.

Was Vietnam service a real factor in this election, or any of the previous four? Is it just a coincidence that no Vietnam vet will ever be commander-in-chief?

Zeljka elections elections, international, John Zogby, military, politics, war, white house, zogby