creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Susan Estrich
10 Feb 2012
What Happened to Newt and Mitt?

Newt's easy. While all of us on the Democratic side were playing "root for Newt," Republicans were … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Chasing Equality

Tuesday's ruling by a panel of three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit … Read More.

3 Feb 2012
Primary Purposes

If the goal of the primary process is simply to nominate a candidate, essentially to nominate the man or … Read More.

The Generic Race

Share Comment

Gallup is out this week with a new poll showing the generic Republican beating the generic Democrat in House contests by 10 points. The gap, Gallup points out, is the biggest one it has seen in midterm generic polls since it started doing them. It is substantially larger than the gap in 1994, when Republicans took control of the House in the first midterm election of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton.

Does that mean it's time for Republicans to start picking the drapes for their new leadership offices? Should Nancy Pelosi be packing up her gavel?

Not so fast.

In a choice between being 10 points ahead or 10 points behind, any hack worth her salt will tell you that 10 points ahead is better. But there are enough "buts" in generic polls to make any predictions at this point wildly premature.

First of all, polls are snapshots, not predictors. They tell you where folks are now, which is not necessarily where they'll be some 10 weeks from now. Politics and public opinion are volatile; every pollster I know will tell you generic polls jump around.

Secondly, generic candidates don't run. The generic Republican is not facing the generic Democrat in any district in America. Real candidates sometimes do much better — or much worse — than their generic equivalents, depending on all kinds of factors that don't go into the generic test.

Virtually everyone in Congress gets re-elected every two years, even as people complain about how little they think of Congress. People hate Congress overwhelmingly, but most of them make an exception for the particular person who represents them — who helped find a lost Social Security check, spoke at their kid's graduation or welcomed them to their office. Incumbents do much better than generics any day.

Thirdly, the Republican Party is showing a number of signs that it is more than capable of stealing defeat from the jaws of victory. The tea party movement has brought real and genuine enthusiasm to the GOP, but it has also brought real divisiveness. Could Harry Reid beat the generic Republican? Not easily. Could he beat tea partier and political newcomer Sharron Angle? Much more likely.

Every Democrat I know is rooting for Palin-favorite Joe Miller to come out on top of incumbent Lisa Murkowski in Alaska precisely because she's running about 30 points better than he is against the Democrat in a general election contest. Republicans hardly have a monopoly on choosing the candidate who is least likely to win, but in this cycle, at least, they're way ahead of the Democrats on that score. It may not be thanks to the administration (which, after all, supported brand-new Democrat Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania over the eminently more electable Joe Sestak). But the Democrats have ended up with a stronger slate of candidates than a party with problems may deserve.

Lastly, for all the problems with the Democratic agenda, at least there is one. What swept the Republicans to victory in 1994 was not (just) running against the administration, but the perception that they had a unifying agenda — a Contract with America — and were ready to govern. The Republicans have every reason to want to nationalize this election (after all, the generic Republican is a national construct). But other than being against everything the president is for, they have yet to put forth anything resembling a governing plan.

Organizers of last week's Lincoln Memorial rally have gone out of their way to say it wasn't about politics, but about faith and spirituality. In addition to making some people nervous about the idea of one group judging the faith and spirituality of others (as in Glenn Beck saying he doesn't recognize the president's brand of Christianity, and one of Beck's rally partners, evangelist leader Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, telling NPR he doesn't recognize Beck's), the focus on faith over politics highlights the void as to the latter.

What all this means is not that Democrats will hold on to the House come next fall, but that they can — and that even if they don't, it hardly spells doom for the president. The one area where the gap between the parties is clearest is that of enthusiasm. Enthusiasm comes from activists and ideologues. Instead of attacking them, this president and his team have to remember to spend some time wooing them.

Clinton lost the House in 1994, but he won re-election handily, in part by running against the Republican Congress. All of which suggests that there are occasions when one must be careful what they wish for.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

8 Comments | Post Comment
Great use of Democratic talking points!
Susan has lost it. She's so far removed from reality! We should pray for her.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Early
Wed Sep 1, 2010 5:10 AM
I sense and awful lot of wishful thinking.
Comment: #2
Posted by: pb1222
Wed Sep 1, 2010 7:32 AM
Has this woman EVER directected a successful campaign that anyone has ever heard about? It seems her "credentials" are that she lead Walter Mondale or was it Michaer Dukakis to an overwhelming defeat in 84 or 88.
She aint no Dick Morris yet people take this woman seriously? You can't get much farther out of touch with understanding the mindset of the voter in a Center-Right Country and Estrich.
GMAFB, Please ...
Comment: #3
Posted by: John Benson
Wed Sep 1, 2010 8:39 AM
If this is the best you have, then I am feeling even better about huge victories on election night. Dems just don't get it. Congress just doesn't get it. We are sick of them doing whatever they want. Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? I could not even turn on the TV to watch Obama try to look like he was doing a great job. AMERICANS ARE SICK OF POLITICIANS. THERE SHOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS A CAREER POLITICIAN.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Lynn
Wed Sep 1, 2010 8:50 AM
Estrich, you are living in some fantasyland. Here's what I get from your article: 1. you care about your Dem agenda and B Hussein Obama only, not about America 2. You don't have any good arguments so you resort to dishonesty and wishful thinking, I guess you are praying that someone reading your words will be swayed to 'vote for the dem incumbent that helped you find the lost social security check' Ain't gonna happen 3. Pick on the usuals, like Palin and Beck, but therein lies your mistake when you side against the voices of reason. Those two , and many others like them, have a genuine love of their country. Do you? or do you just love B Hussein Obama? Susan, he doesn't love you back, he might not be capable as his limited mental resources and ballooned ego very likely only allows for 'self love'. I'm not quite as worried about the ones we currently have in Washington DC committing their daily failures. I'm worried about people like you. The present regime and their failures will fade, they represent symptoms only of a bigger sickness. You always seemed capable and articulate to me in the past, but your blood lust to advance the dem agenda against the will of Americans totally strips you of any credibility. It is as if you take your orders each and every day, consisting of mostly dishonest blather spewed by left leaning haters of our democracy, and hammer everyone that does not agree with these ideas. Don't you ever compromise for the sake of caring about your fellow Americans? You are a smart lady, and should command some literary respect, but you apparently have a misunderstanding of what America is and what Americans want. I'm in my fifties, former hippie that had female friends who burned their bras on the courthouse steps back in those days and I can give you my guarantee they were not displaying their passion in hopes of growing a huge government to tell America how to live and enforce socialistic laws/reforms. They wanted to be treated fairly and left to their own devices. You might not understand that, as it seems you have no passion for freedom and limited government. But you do have one great thing on your side, you're in my prayers. Best of luck
Comment: #5
Posted by: Obrokethenation
Wed Sep 1, 2010 9:56 AM
There is a big difference Susan is missing (or intentionally not mentioning). Bill Clinton survived re-election because he moved to the center after the 1994 Republican gains (He abandoned nationalized health care, signed four of the ten items on the Contract with America, etc). Obama can't do this for two reasons: First, he is TRUELY committed to his goals (don't get me started on what those are). Bill Clinton was truly committed to Bill Clinton's political future. Second, Obama cannot be re-elected without his base: the far left, and the extreme far left. A centrist Obama will cause those voters to either stay at home on Election Day, or use non-chemical, all natural, biodegradable crayons to write in Al Gore.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Bill
Wed Sep 1, 2010 10:09 AM
Susan,

Ever hear of Paul Ryan? Ever read his plan, or even excerpts from it? It may not be a book like Contract with America, but it does outline a Conservative blueprint that differentiates the Paul Ryan's of the Republican Party from the Trent Lott's.

By the way, Clinton won reelection in 1996 because the Republicans ran someone who was "due" his turn (Dole) instead of the more electable candidates and Ross Perot pulled too many votes away from Dole. Clinton never received 50% of the vote.
Comment: #7
Posted by: lvtaxman
Wed Sep 1, 2010 12:10 PM
Why is this talking point still on their list "The Republicans are the party of NO and have no plan". What was the plan with Obama? Change? How come that was enough of a plan? Or was it the promised transparency? Or the line by line review of our expenditures? Or the health care debate being shown on CSPAN? That plan?
As mentioned above Paul Ryan has an economic plan. For those who need one - a list of policies to be addressed are to be out this month. Just because the liberal media does not report how they will govern does not mean there is no plan.
Look, Obama is an idealogue. A very small percentage of the country has his (Pelosi and Reid included) vision for what direction the country should be heading. This small percentage can get as fired up as they want -it isn't enough.
I was open to him once he was elected. Every decision he makes scares me for what we are becoming. I want a leader who loves his country and its citizens first - all of us. We do not have that.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Lisa
Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:52 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 13 Feb 2012
Joe Conason
Joe ConasonUpdated 11 Feb 2012
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 11 Feb 2012

27 Jul 2007 Summer Spats

31 Jul 2009 An Educational Moment

22 May 2009 Dick Cheney?