THE STIMULUS KICKS IN: HIGHER

UNEMPLOYMENT

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

09.3.2010

In our book 2010: Take Back America – A Battle Plan, we write:

“The prospect we now face is not the intermittent up-and-down fluctuations of unemployment we have had since the Great Depression. Thanks to Obama’s policies, we’re confronting the possibility of an unemployment rate that never comes down, just as they have in Europe. If we stay on Obama’s course, lower joblessness in the United States will be a thing of the past.”

The recent rise in unemployment back up to 9.6% and the loss of 54,000 jobs in August, suggests that our prediction is – dismally – coming true.

The Obama stimulus plan has finally kicked in: The higher spending he brought to our nation and the debt levels that are accompanying it are the result.

Why is unemployment remaining so high? Because the totality of Obama’s policies are dragging us into a depression.

• The prospect of dramatically higher taxes next year is freezing consumer spending, particularly in the upper income ranges which spend a third of America’s consumption.

• The huge changes that are looming in medical care brought about by Obama’s health care legislation are freezing new employment and expansion in the medical sector which accounts for 16% of GDP.

• The financial reform legislation has so raised the prospect of a federal takeover of any bank that makes “imprudent” loans that financial institutions are afraid to lend, freezing new job creation.

• The looming possibility of cap-and-tax legislation in the name of halting climate change is freezing any expansion in the manufacturing and energy sectors since these policies will force jobs to move overseas to locations that do not impose such a tax (e.g. India and China).

• The massive expansion in the deficit and in the resulting debt has so eroded confidence in our nation’s future that Americans are now saving 6% of their income, up from 1% in the past, sapping consumer spending.

• The threat of new rules for union elections that will spread private sector unionization is freezing business expansion plans.

Obama’s rush to spend, regulate, re-engineer, redistribute, and tax have stopped any recovery and are sending us back into recession. In her wonderful book The Forgotten Man, Amity Shlaes notes how FDR’s policies in the late 1930s did the same thing. She notes how the imposition of the Social Security tax in 1937 (benefits did not start until 1941) and the rapid wage hikes that accompanied the passage of the Wagner Act (steel worker wages rose 40% in 1937) sent a recovering nation back into a new depression that lasted until the war started in 1939.

In his haste to re-make America and to bring us the “fundamental change” he promised as he campaigned for president in 2008, Obama has torpedoed the recovery and sent us back into a double dip recession.

The answer is to cut spending back to pre-Obama levels, reduce taxes and eliminate the threat of tax increases, zero fund the changes Obama has legislated in health care (and repeal them in 2013), eliminate the threat of cap-and-tax, and lay the basis for solid economic growth.

We have left the recession that started in 2007 and entered a new recession caused by Obama’s policies.

HOW REPUBLICANS WILL WIN THE

SENATE

By Dick Morris

08.30.2010

It gets tiresome hearing the conventional wisdom say that the Democrats will likely keep control of the Senate. Far from it.

To gain control, Republicans must win ten new seats. An analysis of the latest polling data suggests that Republicans currently hold the lead in eight pick-up states: Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wisconsin, Washington State, Arkansas, Delaware, North Dakota, and Indiana. In a ninth, Illinois, the candidates are tied and, in the tenth – Nevada – Reid is ahead by only one point. And, for insurance, Boxer in California and Gillibrand in New York are both below 50% of the vote. In Connecticut, Blumenthal is only at 50%. That’s a potential pickup of thirteen seats and a likely gain of at least ten (enough for a majority).

Any incumbent who is running at less than 50% of the vote is in serious trouble. It means that a majority of the voters have decided not to vote for him or her. (Asked if you are likely to be married to the same person next year, a vote of “undecided” does not bode well for your marriage).

So here are the numbers:

August 27th Polls

Nevada:

Reid (D) 45 / Angle (R) 44 (Mason Dixon)

With Reid this far under 50%, Angle is likely to win.

August 26th Polls

Florida:

(Currently Republican) Rubio (R) / 40 Crist (I) 30 / Meek (D) 21 (Rasmussen)

So much for Crist!

Pennsylvania:

Toomey 40 (R) / Sestak (D) 31 (Franklin-Marshall)

August 25th Polls

Colorado:

Buck (R) 49 / Bennett (D) 40 (Reuters)

California:

Boxer (D) 49 / Fiorina (R) 44 (Rasmussen)

Boxer has gained a bit, but still in trouble.

Louisiana:

(Currently Republican) Vitters (R) / 51 Melancon (D) 41 (PPP)

Wisconsin:

Johnson (R) 47 / Feingold (D) 46 (Rasmussen)

Illinois:

Giannoulias (D) 45 / Kirk (R) 45 (Rasmussen)

August 24th polls

Missouri:

(Currently Republican) Blunt: 54 / Carnahan: 41 (Rasmussen)

August 21st Polls

Washington State:

Rossi (R) 52 / Murray (D) 45 (SurveyUSA)

August 20th Polls

Arkansas:

Boozeman (R) 65 / Lincoln (D) 27 (Rasmussen)

This is not a typo!

The most likely results are that Republicans win the eight seats in which they now lead and also take Illinois and Nevada for a gain of ten seats and control. They also have a good shot in California and possible upsets in New York and Connecticut.

PARTY TREND HAS YET TO KICK IN

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

08.25.2010

Don’t confuse the dramatic swell of the Republican tide that is becoming increasingly evident to the pundits of the country with party trend. Right before Election Day, the numbers will get even better and presage an even larger Republican victory.

Party trend usually indicates itself in the ten days before an election when voters who do not typically follow politics closely tune in and decide for whom to vote. Until this window, they usually describe themselves to pollsters as “undecided.” There will be a huge Republican party trend this year, but it hasn’t happened yet.

The huge Republican poll numbers these days do not reflect the last minute switches typical of less involved voters but rather mirror the disappointment with Obama and with Congress among voters who do follow politics closely that has accumulated over the past year and a half. It is this reappraisal of their political opinions that is occasioning the big swing toward Republicans in the 2010 election.

The ranks of these disaffected voters who are now turning against Obama and the Democrats will soon be joined by the less involved voters who will come around in the week or ten days before the election.

From the perception of the pollster, party trend is a bit like a curveball thrown by a pitcher to a batter. The election statistics remain fairly static for weeks or even months with little change as the race unfolds through September and early through mid October. Like a fastball that comes in straight and true.

Then, suddenly, as the election nears, the vote swings wildly to one side or the other, akin to a curve ball that breaks as it approaches the batter – usually too late for him to make an adjustment. Suddenly, the tied races show up as decisive victories for the side that benefits from party trend. And the unwinnable races come into play.

2010 is a year like no other in the magnitude of the partisan shift going on. It dwarfs 1994 and even 1974 in its order of magnitude. But we haven’t yet seen the full impact of the last minute party shift that will take place. Plenty of voters who are now undecided are yet to be heard from and, when they are, they will impact the results decisively.

In which direction? Most likely they will transform a massive Republican win into an even more massive victory. The uninvolved voters who will decide late in the process are likely to break the same way the rest of the country is breaking – toward the Republicans. Surveys suggest that they share the disenchantment of the participating voters with the economy and Obama’s performance. They have just not focused on the coming election.

Democrats hope that the less involved voters are also less educated and more likely to be the young or minority voters on whom their party depends. But the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats for Obama indicates that these voters are likely to decide by staying home. In the most recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics study, 54% of Republicans said they were “very enthusiastic” about voting in the 2010 elections while only 28% of Democrats felt the same way.

So the net result is that for those who anticipate a major Republican win in 2010, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

ADVICE TO GOP CANDIDATES:

AVOID ADJECTIVES,

NOUNS ARE GOOD ENOUGH

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

08.23.2010

There is no need, this year, to load up negative ads with adjectives painting your opponents as evil, big spenders in the thrall of the DC establishment. The simple facts of your opponents’ voting records are enough to defeat them. Just the facts, ma’am.

Republican negative ad writers always delight in describing the Stimulus package as bloated, wasteful, government-growing, and useless. The adjectives get in the way. The polling we’ve done indicates that the simple words “stimulus package” convey all that and more.

There is no need to call Obama’s health care legislation “a government attempt to take over our health care” or a bill to “slash medical care for the elderly” or an “attempt to force rationing of care.” The simple word Obamacare conveys the same meanings.

Why describe cap and trade as “job killing” or “driving jobs overseas” when the words cap and trade say these same things to voters?

Ads are effective for the response they elicit from the viewers. The more they catalyze a response inside the mind of the voter, the more effective they are. Ads that are heavy on adjectives and have the look and feel of an attack ad run into credibility problems with the average voter. One rebels against a heavy handed attack and you find yourself fighting against the ad, even if you basically believe it to be true. The more even handed and credible the ad is, the more it will be believed.

It is the beauty of the 2010 election year that ads that are prosaic, simple, straightforward, and factual will do much better than those which are loaded up with negative adjectives and blood-dripping depictions of big spenders who believe in big government.

A simple ad along these lines will be far more effective for a Republican challenger to a Democratic incumbent than any elaborately conceived negative commercial:

“Do you support the $850 billion stimulus package Obama passed last year? Joe Democrat voted yes. Harry Republican says no.

The TARP bailout? Democrat voted in favor. Republican is opposed.

Obamacare? Joe Democrat supported it. Harry Republican would have voted no.

Cap and Trade? Democrat yes, again. Republican, no.

Vote for the one that agrees with you.”

If you have to run a disclaimer featuring the candidate, just end the ad up with “I’m Harry Republican and I approve of this ad to bring you the facts. Just the facts.”

The whole idea is to make the ad totally credible – an ad where your opponent should be willing to pay for half of it. Like an ad sponsored by the League of American Voters or some such group.

This approach may rob your media advisor of his creativity and give your staff less satisfaction than a blood drenched negative, but it will work far better.

Tony Schwartz, my mentor, once told me that he would read me two identical ads that would elicit totally different reactions:

Ad One: “You can read the truth about the pornography industry in a three part series in the New York Times”

Ad Two: “You can read the truth about the pornography industry in a three part series in the National Enquirer.”

Of course, these are totally different ads, but the difference is in the mind of the listener. The impartial, just the facts approach to negative advertising passes the internal screens voters have on ad credibility and does its work inside the voters’ mind. And the adjectives they would use to describe Obama’s programs to themselves are far, far more devastating than the ones you ad person can conceive.