Home of the Marist Poll | Polls, Analysis, Learning, and More

Scene from movie Dazed & confused of students standing, sitting, and laying on and inside an orange convertible car

April 19, 2023

We Should Hang Out More

Movies often serve as perfect time capsules, offering snapshots of what life was like in an earlier time. Take Dazed and Confused. The movie is set in late seventies Texas and focuses on groups of ... Read Now >

10/25: The Youth Vote 2010

October 25, 2010 | by Mary Griffith

Their passion is still evident. In Marist’s Political Communication and Politics course which I co-teach, a small group of students and I recently discussed Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. While addressing Obama’s use of new media, at least half of the students mentioned that they either contributed financially to Obama’s campaign or were on his mailing list. Plus, one of our students did not hesitate to share how she was a foot soldier in Obama’s grassroots army. But, can lightning strike twice? Can that exuberance carry over into this year’s midterm elections?

According to the Pew Research Center’s 2008 post-election analysis, younger voters backed the Democratic Party in the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections. 66% of voters under age 30 supported Obama in 2008, according to the exit polls. The result was the largest age gap among voters since 1972.

Now, in a midterm election year when Democrats and Republicans are looking for any competitive edge and with the White House trying to reignite that spark, will it work? The clock is ticking and there are few signs that the youth is in a voting mood. According to the latest national McClatchy-Marist Poll, just 11% of registered voters under the age of 30 are very enthusiastic about voting in November while 48% of voters 60 an older have the same level of enthusiasm. Plus, the nation’s youngest voters have been disappointed with the president. In Marist’s September 22nd survey, 59% said the president was not meeting their expectations.

So, what are candidates, and the president, to do? As Heather Smith, President of Rock the Vote, points out in a recent U.S. News and World Report article, all hope is not lost. Campaigns just need to get moving and talk the talk young America wants to hear – focus on issues closest to them, issues like the economy.

10/22: Countdown to Election Day in NY

October 22, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

With less than two weeks until Election Day, will the Republicans take control of the New York State Senate? Can we expect any surprises in New York, and what will turnout be like? The Marist Poll’s John Sparks speaks with Political Analyst Jay DeDapper about this and more.

Jay DeDapper

John Sparks
Jay, Election Day is approaching. The last time we spoke about the New York Governor’s race, you told me it’s Andrew Cuomo’s to lose. Now there’s been this debate, just curious, have things changed, or is the race tightening up any?

Jay DeDapper
If anything, it’s changed in Andrew Cuomo’s favor. Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate, has stuck his foot in his mouth so many times that he’s run out of mouth space. He has gotten into so much trouble with so many comments and so many things he said and done that even in this Republican year, this very Republican year, this race… I don’t think you can even say, “It’s Andrew Cuomo’s to lose anymore.” I don’t… there’s really no conceivable way short of some unbelievable disaster on Andrew Cuomo’s part that he will not win this race.

John Sparks
You know, Jay, Andrew Cuomo isn’t the only one who has a stake in the governor’s election. Control of the Senate is also at stake. I believe Republicans need to pick up two seats in the Senate to regain control of the majority if Cuomo is elected and only one if a Republican is elected governor. Do you see a change in the control of the New York Senate?

Jay DeDapper
Well, the New York State Senate has been controlled by Republicans, had been controlled by Republicans, basically from the beginning of the century, the last century, the 20th Century, until two years ago. So, there’s a lot of reason to believe that Democrats’ hold on it is tenuous. Add to that the fact that the Democrats basically came into office taking over the state Senate for the first time and proceeded to commit fratricide by not being able to decide on a majority leader, having a war over the majority leader, when it’s finally appointing a different majority leader than the one who they thought they were going to have and then failing to accomplish much of anything. It seems very unlikely at this point the Democrats will be able to retain control of the state Senate. That probably doesn’t mean anything at all for the way the government works because let’s face it, government in Albany doesn’t work no matter who’s in charge, and it’s going to be a tall task for Andrew Cuomo to change what three governors before him have all said they would change and failed to do. What is at stake, though, is that the state Senate controls to some degree redistricting for congressional seats. New York has only one Republican congressperson left. If the state Senate is controlled by Republicans, they will be able to redraw the congressional lines because New York is probably going to lose some congressional seats because of population decline, vis-à-vis other parts of the country. It looks like if Republicans were to regain control of the state Senate, which seems fairly likely, they will be able to redraw those lines to the benefit of Republicans who will likely be able to gain a couple of congressional seats and tilt the balance a little bit more towards them from a huge, huge underdog status they now face.

John Sparks
And, I believe Malcolm Smith was quoted as saying that if the Democrats retain a majority, that he would see that they would gerrymander those districts so that Republicans will be in oblivion in New York for the next 20 years.

Jay DeDapper
Yeah, I mean if the Democrats can regain or excuse me, can control the state Senate, can hold onto control, there’s no reason to believe that they would not be able to draw the districts in such a way that there would be no Republican, safe Republican congressional seats. That basically has to do with political affiliation in this state. There are very few Republicans compared to Democrats and independents. It’s five to three to one. And, so finding a Republican seat, even upstate, requires some very special work with the pen. The Republicans have been able to do that. Democrats won’t need a whole lot of effort to draw a Republican district out of existence.

John Sparks
Do you still feel that New York voters are rather lukewarm about these upcoming races. Say like in the comptroller’s race?

Jay DeDapper
Yeah, the comptroller’s race is an interesting one because there hasn’t been any significant polling on it. It is the second most powerful seat or the attorney general. Depending on how you look at it, the second or third most powerful statewide elected official, and it can be a very important role, especially if the comptroller is of the opposite party or is in a war with the governor. The comptroller, he or she, can be a real thorn in the side of the governor, and sometimes maybe that’s a good thing. This race has not gotten very much attention. It has a name on the Republican line that people are going to recognize because John Faso ran for governor before, and it’s got a name on the Democratic side of a guy who’s been comptroller for the last few years but hasn’t made a whole lot of noise. He… I’m sure he thinks he has, but it’s tough to get through the — to clear the chatter when David Paterson is your meltdown governor, and Andrew Cuomo is your attorney general hard charging on all the banks and consumer frauds and all that. I think that the DiNapoli race, the comptroller race could be a surprise. That could be where a fairly low turnout, the fairly low interest among Democrats plays for the benefit of much more excited Republicans.

John Sparks
Do you think there will be a low turnout?

Jay DeDapper
You know, I hate predicting turnout. You know we’ve worked together a long time and seen a lot of elections, and turnout predictions almost invariably proved to be untrue. I don’t think turnout in a year where even though we have two Senate seats up, which is a historical anomaly, we’ve got a big governor’s race with a big name, and we’ve got the control of the Senate and Congress in Washington at stake, I don’t get the sense from the people in New York, from talking to people, from overhearing conversations, from seeing the buzz, I don’t get the sense that this is an energized political state right now. So, I would guess if I had to be a betting person and guess, I would put my chips down on not a very large turnout.

John Sparks
We’ve seen polls, and we hear that voters are angry, they’re ready to turn everyone out. They’re really unhappy. I talked to one of our former colleagues, Gabe Pressman, earlier this morning. He has been in Utica, and he said that was the sentiment in Utica. And, yet, despite all this that we hear about people not being satisfied, it does not seem like that they’re going to take the time or the energy to go to the polls to make a change.

Jay DeDapper
I mean, I don’t … when I say “low turnout,” I don’t mean that it’s going to be like primary low turnout, like in primaries where 4% or 6% of the people turn out. I just don’t think this is going to be anywhere near obviously a presidential year, and I kind of doubt that in New York it’s going to be as big as 2006, which was a very large off-year election in terms of turnout. I think what Gabe found in Utica is probably right. Upstate, as you know, Upstate New York has been economically depressed and down at the heels for the most part, not every city, but for the most part for decades. I don’t think you could go up there even in best of times and find people that are particularly happy with government, whether it be in Albany or in Washington, and I think that those folks — I think they are motivated to vote to some degree, although no more or less motivated than they are in any other year when they’re particularly upset. I do think that it’s worth remembering that Upstate New York is an increasingly small part of the electorate of New York State. You only have to win New York City and either Long Island or Westchester County, and you can’t be beat. You just can’t be beat in this state. There’s just not enough people upstate to make a difference, and I’m not sure that activated, energized, mobilized feeling is as strong in the suburbs here or in the city. Part of that has to do with the economy. New York’s economy has weathered this recession better than almost any major city other than Pittsburgh and a couple of bright spots, and the suburbs, while being hit somewhat hard, it’s nothing like Arizona or California or Florida or Nevada or many of these other places where real estate has just sucked the life out of people in the economy. It hasn’t happened here and there may be anger, but it’s not the visceral anger that you see out West and in the South.

John Sparks
I’d like to take a quick look at some other races. Andrew Cuomo of course will be leaving the attorney general’s position one way one or another. Any contest in the race for attorney general?

Jay DeDapper
It’s possible. Eric Schneiderman has certainly won over Democrats. He’s fairly popular among the Democratic clubs and the folks that can get the vote out if it’s a lowish turnout. He is popular in the suburbs. He’s a Manhattan guy, but he’s popular enough in the suburbs, and his Republican opponent doesn’t have enough of a name or, I think, a widespread name recognition and so far not enough money to cut through the clutter. I think that there’s always a chance that after you get past Andrew Cuomo and maybe Chuck Schumer on the ticket, I think there’s always a chance you’re going to see ticket splitters and people saying, “Screw it — throw the bums out,” and voting for Republicans. I wouldn’t think it’s going to happen in the attorney general race, but it’s always a chance.

John Sparks
Glad you mentioned Schumer. I was about to ask you, the president’s popularity has been on quite a slide. Will that translate into a problem for Schumer or Kirsten Gillibrand?

Jay DeDapper
Both Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand have anemic, and that’s putting it kindly, anemic Republican opposition. I think this is a year that if Republicans in New York State had gotten their act together and put up a really strong candidate, especially against Kirsten Gillibrand, they might have a seat in the Northeast to win. Chuck Schumer, that’s a harder nut to crack. Schumer’s got a lot of money. He’s got a lot of popularity. He’s a campaigner. As you know, he works harder than anybody you’ve ever seen campaigning and governing and being on the job. He will be a tough person to beat even when Republicans manage to put up a Grade A candidate. This year they have not. Both of those seats are very safely Democratic.

John Sparks
You know I mentioned a minute ago about the possibility of gerrymandering and redrawing congressional districts. I’m just curious about the congressional seats in New York at this time. Any that might change hands?

Jay DeDapper
Oh yeah. I mean, two years ago when Democrats almost swept, they almost took every seat from Republicans, and this would’ve been an entirely Democratic state as represented in Congress, That was the high water mark. Maybe people didn’t recognize that at the time that that was the high water mark. This year there are numerous seats that were — that are already kind of 50/50 seats. In other words, half of the people are Democratic, half are Republicans, or better put a third are Democrats, about a third are Republicans, about a third are independents. There are actually a number of districts that way throughout the state which have elected only in the last two or four years, only in the last two cycles Democrats for the first time in many cases in decades. I think many of those seats are vulnerable. John Hall in the Hudson Valley I think is vulnerable. That’s a seat that was Republican historically. There’s a seat outside of Albany, historically forever a Republican seat. Since the Civil War, it was a Republican seat until a couple of terms ago. I think that’s at risk. Tim Bishop out of the end of Long Island, Suffolk County, probably not in a huge amount of trouble, but facing an extremely wealthy self-financed candidate, and if voters in Suffolk County are angry enough, Tim Bishop could be another victim. I think New York wakes up the day after the election with at least a couple of more Republican members of the House.

John Sparks
We’re right on top of it. Do you see anything taking place between now and Election Day? Politics is dynamic. Any surprises? Anything you’ve heard of that might change your opinion about what we talked about today?

Jay DeDapper
Nothing that you can see, but that’s the nature and the excitement of politics is that you never know what’s going to happen in the final two weeks of the campaign. Typically, if it’s going to be something that another campaign, an opposing campaign knows about, you actually don’t save it till the final weekend. You start to roll it out about now because it takes a couple of weeks to take hold and to have its effect. We saw that with Chuck Schumer and Al D’Amato when Al D’Amato back in 1992 — 1998, excuse me, called Schumer a putzhead on the radio. That took a few days, about four/five days for Schumer to kind of traction on it, to work it up, that was two weeks out from the election and that was the end of D’Amato. So, if there’s a surprise out there, if there’s somebody that’s going to screw up, this is the time they’re going to have to do it. You get too close to Election Day and those kinds of things don’t generally happen and they don’t generally work. I don’t see anything on the horizon, but who knows? That’s the fun of politics.

10/21: All About (Election) Eve

October 21, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

As Margo Channing (aka Bette Davis) in the 1950 award winning All About Eve, snarled, “Fasten your Seat Belts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.” The Democrats may not be into classics but, in this era of change, election night may indeed be one for the ages.

Right now, you’d be hard-pressed to find a pundit who thinks the Democrats are likely to hold the House. But, what about the Senate? Here, things are more complicated. So, let me offer my estimates for the likely body count for the upper chamber.

Let’s start with the base numbers. The Democrats currently have 57 seats, plus two independents, for a total of 59. That means the GOP must pick up a net 10 seats to take control. (The tie goes to the Democrats with VP Biden as the tie-breaker). Acquiring a ten-spot is no small potatoes but seems to be more in reach as Election Day nears than at any other time this fall.

First off, the Democrats’ hope of offsetting losses elsewhere by picking up a seat currently held by the GOP (Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire) doesn’t seem to be materializing.

Now, the GOP starts off with a quick two-spot with Democrats retiring in Indiana (Bayh) and North Dakota (Dorgan). And, trouble is brewing for many incumbent Democrats trying to hold on against the potential Republican tidal wave.

Democrats in trouble are in Arkansas (Lincoln) and Wisconsin (Feingold). That would the net GOP gain to +4.

There is a group of toss-up states including California (Boxer), Colorado (Bennett, the Salazar seat), Illinois (Giannoulias, the Burris/Obama seat), Nevada (Reid), Pennsylvania (Sestak) (the Specter seat), Washington State (Murray), and West Virginia (Manchin, the Byrd seat). The Republicans would have to win six of these seats to bring the total to +10. With the exception of West Virginia, these were all Obama friendly states in 2008.

If this election is about a sleepy Democratic base, then the best thing the Democrats have going for them, as they try to salvage this fall’s election, is the fracturing of the GOP. The tea party giveth and the tea party taketh away. In this instance, Delaware (Coons, the Kaufman/ Biden seat) once a likely steal for the GOP is now solidly in the Democratic column thanks to Palin look-alike Christine O’Donnell. And, in Connecticut, the Democrat Blumenthal (the Dodd seat) seems to be holding off a strong challenge from tea party supported Linda McMahon.

The bottom line: In this election cycle, voters are clearly saying “no” to politics as usual, but they also are questioning politics of the very unusual.

So, the odds still favor the Democrats holding the Senate, even if there margin is slim. In fact, the GOP goal of achieving a ten seat pickup has only happened twice in many decades, 1958 and 1980.

10/21: Any Way You Slice It…

| by Marist Poll

By Barbara Carvalho

If you are a devotee of politics or just a casual observer, you’ve been hearing a whole lot this election cycle about the enthusiasm gap strongly favoring the GOP and destined to send the Democrats scurrying for cover.

The case for a GOP rout goes something like this. According to the latest McClatchy- Marist Poll, 51% of Republican voters around the nation tell us they are “very enthusiastic” about voting this November compared to a paltry 28% for the Democrats.

Turnout is tied to motivation. The Democrats who this time represent the incumbent party no longer have the winds of change at their backs. Instead, they must navigate powerful head winds.

Drilling down into the numbers, the potential for a Democratic disaster is even more apparent. Younger voters (those under 30) clock in at 11% on the” very enthusiastic” scale. Their older counterparts (those over 60) are a far more robust 48% on this question. By political ideology, 27% of liberals are eagerly counting down the days to November 2nd, whereas 53% of conservative self-identifiers are so inclined. The electorate that ushered in Barack Obama to the White House two years ago is now on the sidelines suggesting turnout won’t resemble 2008.

Swing voters may opt out of the electorate, not uncommon in off year elections. No wonder team Obama is trying everything possible at this late date to re-enthuse his core supporters.

Of course, all of these poll numbers are aimed at a moving target. Campaign dynamics often create late action as voters focus their sights on an approaching election. Certainly, the White House has its electoral game face on. And, Democratic candidates are aware of the uphill fight they face. But, so far the tea leaves are mostly pointing the GOP’s way.

10/21: On-Demand TV: What’s the Story?

| by Marist Poll

A recent Marist poll suggests our TV viewing habits are undergoing massive changes. 16% of U.S. residents are watching most TV shows using their DVRs, while another 9% are watching most shows on the Web. If demographics are any indication, it won’t be long before these numbers climb even higher: only 56% of people under 45 watch most TV shows in real time compared with 77% of their elders. The implications are straightforward: many of us are enjoying the flexibility of the digital age, which doesn’t require us to be in our living rooms on a certain day at a certain time to catch our favorite programs.

A more intriguing question might have to do with what we’re watching rather than how we’re watching. Our evolving habits could alter (and may have already altered) the structure and content of television shows.

It’s not hard to imagine possible changes in structure. Freed from strict programming schedules, shows needn’t be edited into to half-hour and hour-long blocks that alternate between content and ads. Distributors can also be more creative with ad placement. Hulu.com, which offers TV shows in full, sometimes allows users to choose to view a long advertisement before their show starts instead of experiencing the traditional interruptions. Many shows resort to narrative devices that pump up suspense prior to commercials — what better way to make viewers sit through the beer and insurance ads? — and on-demand formats may give writers the confidence to ditch these tired conventions.

On-demand technology also allows us to start at the beginning of each series. Traditional TV shows, eager to pick up viewers in the first season, the third season, or whatever season, usually aren’t structured so that knowledge of past episodes are crucial to understanding the show. Instead, mainstream programs are designed to deliver their thrills or laughs in a short period of time, followed by satisfying closure. Conflict is established in the first minute and resolved prior to the end of the half-hour or hour. Law & Order has mastered this form, hooking us before the credits with a crime scene, often drenched in blood, and then rewarding us one hour later by bringing the depraved perp to justice. House thrives on the same trick, although the mystery is medical rather than criminal (the amount of blood being roughly the same). In both shows, the characters have histories, but knowing their back stories aren’t essential to following the action.

I’m sure there will always be a place for such tactics, but I also hope the new technology could spur writers to be more inventive when organizing plots. Individual episodes should still be self-contained, but they can also expand the less obvious narrative threads planted in earlier shows, as well as continue thematic and visual motifs. One of the common compliments lavished on shows such as The Wire and The Sopranos was that they told stories with novelistic complexity; each episode functioned as a book chapter, not only advancing another increment of plot, but also contributing, in a less linear way, to the narrative whole that stretched from the first episode to the last, many seasons later.

This could all be wishful thinking; the money-making requirements of on-demand content could shape our new media stories in ways that aren’t especially respectful of narrative integrity. I’ve encountered plenty of three-minute comedy and sports highlight clips that start off with pre-roll ads, boasting a content-to-commercial ratio that traditional TV advertisers could only dream of. But, here’s hoping that advances in technology will promote advances in TV shows.

One final thought — to the 7% of U.S. residents who don’t watch TV at all, I say … wow. I’m not sure what you’re doing with your free time, but I have a feeling it’s more productive than watching TV, no matter what format.

10/1: College Football in the Lone Star State

October 1, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

**Editor’s note—in the interest of full disclosure, in addition to being part of the Marist Poll team, the author is also on the faculty of the Mayborn School of Journalism at the University of North Texas.

Something strange is in the air. It’s the final week of September in Texas.

No one is asking, “How ‘bout them Cowboys?” They’re 1-2.

Baseball fans are talking about a Red October in Arlington since the Texas Rangers have clinched only their third divisional championship in franchise history.

But, this is Texas where there are really just two sports that really count: football and spring football.

And with America’s Team in the same shape as America’s economy, the talk turns to college and high school football.

College football may be the free farm system of the NFL, but it’s big business and serious stuff in the Lone Star State.

The University of Texas annual $120 million sports budget is fueled by ticket sales, television contracts, and t-shirts (merchandise licensing). Now UT is negotiating for its own cable television network.

It’s more than “win one for the Gipper.” Football is also an integral part of drawing back well-heeled alumni to sustain other on-campus endeavors.

That’s one of the reasons why you will see construction cranes today building a new $78 million football stadium and high-rise hotel for the University of North Texas.

UNT is located in Denton 30 miles north of Dallas and Fort Worth. UNT is the fourth largest university in the state with an enrollment of some 37,000 students.

UNT is NOT a college football power house and never has been. It can’t compete with UT, but it must compete with the Dallas Cowboys, the Texas Rangers, the Dallas Mavericks, TCU, and SMU for the north Texas entertainment dollars. And, it competes for those about as well as its teams do on the field.

Yet it continues to play. It’s too important not to… especially if you want to sustain high enrollments, land high dollar research grants, and gain national prestige.

The biggest name to ever come out of the football program was a defensive lineman you may have heard of—“Mean Joe” Green. He went from the North Texas Eagles to the Pittsburgh Steelers. You’ll find a bust of him in the NFL Hall of Fame in Canton.

Despite Mean Joe, UNT has not been known for its football program, but for its “One O’Clock Lab Band” which has performed for presidents, has accompanied Ella Fitzgerald, and produced members for the Stan Kenton and Woody Herman bands.

But, this is Texas and football is king. That’s why a few weeks ago the UNT football team traveled to Clemson to become cannon fodder for a national football powerhouse — for half the gate, a share of the ESPN television revenue, and national exposure for a program desperately wanting to break into the big time.

What is college football? It’s an American tradition. But, it’s also in a fight for survival where colleges and universities find themselves dealing with the same reality taking place in the private sector where the big corporations get bigger, the smaller ones fight to stay alive, and those that can’t go out of business.

It’s also like the international arms race. There are the superpowers who possess nuclear weapons (Divison I football programs and their Heisman candidates), and then there are the smaller emerging Third World countries who want to compete with the big boys.

And for some of us who just enjoy sports, it keeps us occupied between the World Series and when pitchers and catchers report again in February.

9/30: Polls, Polls Everywhere

September 30, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

Don’t be thrown by a recent flurry of New York State polls on the governor’s contest between “The Son also Rises” Andrew Cuomo and “I’ll clean up Albany with a baseball bat” Carl Paladino. Is Cuomo ahead by 6 points (Quinnipiac) or 33 points (Siena), or somewhere in between, 19 points (Marist)? Much of the difference can be explained in the varied methodologies of the polling organizations. Were the numbers based upon registered or likely voters? Was former Conservative Party candidate Rick Lazio included in the tossup question?

Public opinion polling has a statistical basis but a great deal of the sausage making has to do with the judgments and interpretations of the various pollsters. How are respondents selected? Are cell phones being used as well as landlines? What effort is being made to reach hard to reach voters? What is the question wording and order? Is the quality of the interviewing up to industry standards? How is the data balanced to ensure it reflects the electorate? AND, so much more…

Clearly, not all polls are created equally. Given the range of possibilities each poll organization can utilize, it may be more surprising that poll results are often similar and not all over the map as recently occurred in the New York governor’s race.

Now, this electorate is a tougher read than in recent election cycles, especially when it comes to who is likely to turn out. It is a volatile time, and the polls will need to pick up on that uncertainty. Having said that, I suspect the next round of Cuomo-Paladino polls to be singing a similar tune. It is also unlikely the media will serve up a similar amount of coverage to the “polls are similar” story as the recent avalanche of words devoted to the “why polls are so different.”

9/30: Back to the Statistical Drawing Board

| by Marist Poll

By Barbara Carvalho

I couldn’t help but notice that, according to the NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research), the economic recession is over. This caught me off guard because I was under the impression that the economy was still teetering, mired in a slump comparable to the Chicago Cubs qualifying for post-season play.

So, I took a closer look and was even more astonished that NBER’s September 20th release was based on data dating back to June 2009. Clearly, the problems that Americans are experiencing as they try to make ends meet are far more immediate than this report. And, to add to my cognitive dissonance, according to the latest McClatchy-Marist national survey, 80% of the nation thinks the U.S. economy is currently in an economic recession. Go figure!

Now, President Obama, donning his “politician-in-chief” hat, quickly pointed out how the economists are off-base matched up against people struggling to pay their daily bills. But, the economists have their tried and failed models which calibrate the relative health of the economy even if they don’t jive with public realities. The ol’ “perfessor” Casey Stengel might be instructive to these financial forecasters. “Can’t anybody here play this game?” Step up to the plate and revise your statistical models. If not, run the risk of being cast aside in the public dialogue.

9/28: The New York Ballot in 2010

September 28, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

Despite calls to replace all incumbents regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans, Political Analyst Jay Dedapper thinks most of New York’s incumbents will hold onto their seats. And, he tells the Marist Poll’s John Sparks that’s because he believes voter turnout will be low in the upcoming midterm elections.

Jay DeDapper

John Sparks
Jay, the last time we spoke, you told me New Yorkers were not all that excited about races coming up on the November ballot. Since then, however, the Tea Party scored a couple more primary victories, and a New York Times‘ poll recently reported that voters across the country, they said they’re disenchanted with all incumbents regardless of whether they’re Democrats or Republicans. Do you still feel that New York voters are rather lukewarm about these upcoming races?

Jay DeDapper
Yeah, I do. I think there’s the anger and the frustration that voters say they feel in polls actually hasn’t really showed up at the polls. It’s showed up in terms of the number of people who do come to the polls and vote, but take a look at that race in Delaware, for instance, with Christine O’Donnell, and here’s someone who got a big victory over a moderate Republican that was supported by the party structure. But, look at the number of people who turned out to vote. It was fewer than 25% of — or less than 25% of the Republican electorate. So, yeah, people are frustrated and upset and angry. So far, there hasn’t been a lot of evidence that mass numbers of people are so upset and angry that they’re actually going to bother to go to the polls and do anything about it, at least not in primaries. I think the situation in New York is exacerbated by the fact that there’s such a large Democratic registration advantage, and at least right now the premier race, the marquee race, which is for governor, is headlined by a guy, Andrew Cuomo, who does not really — there’s not a lot of animosity towards him among independents. Republicans may not like him because his Cuomo, but independents don’t really seem to dislike Andrew Cuomo all that much, and they are the only ones who could swing this race into something that would be considered competitive, I think.

John Sparks
So, Andrew Cuomo in the governor’s race, Paladino really doesn’t have a shot since he knocked off Lazio?

Jay DeDapper
Well, again, you have to look at the registration advantage the Democrats have in the state, and for a Republican to win in New York, any statewide office, in the last ten years or so, it hasn’t happened, and it hasn’t happened because that registration advantage is so large. When it’s happened in the past, even when the Democrats have held a big registration advantage, it happened at the end of Cuomo, for instance, the last Cuomo when he was running for a fourth term, and George Pataki ran as kind of an outsider and an independent. In this case, Andrew Cuomo, the son of Mario Cuomo, is not running for a fourth term. He’s running as an outsider. He’s running as the guy who could come in and fix Albany. There is no incumbent that’s running, so I don’t think that the Republicans have the advantage that they have when they’re running against incumbent Democrats who have frankly been in office too long. That’s not the case in this case, and it’s going to — it would take a overwhelming turnout among independents and Republicans and for Democrats to simply stay home, lots and lots of Democrats to stay home, to get Paladino much of a chance, and that doesn’t even accept the fact that Republicans are pretty split about him winning.

John Sparks
And, so I don’t suppose Chuck Schumer’s staying awake at night worrying about Jay Townsend these days?

Jay DeDapper
Yeah, I mean there are on top of the gubernatorial race, there are two Senate races. Chuck Schumer is one of them, and Kirsten Gillibrand is the second. So, both U.S. Senate seats are up. Chuck Schumer is clearly the one that doesn’t have anything to worry about because he still has, among all the politicians in New York that are in office and running for re-election, he’s the one who has the highest rating of favorability. It’s not as high as it once was, but as you said at the very beginning, it doesn’t really matter what party you’re in, if you’re an incumbent, people are angry.

John Sparks
You know, Gillibrand’s an interesting study I think. At one time there were mixed reviews even among Democrats when she was appointed. What sense do you get now? Is there any chance that her opponent can surprise her?

Jay DeDapper
I think there’s more of a chance there than there is that Paladino’s going to surprise Cuomo or Jay Townsend’s going to surprise Chuck Schumer. There doesn’t… She has failed over the course of her term — her time in office, and remember, she replaced Hillary Clinton when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. And as you alluded to, there was a lot of consternation among Democrats that the governor at the time, David Paterson, appointed her as opposed to appointing someone else, like Caroline Kennedy. Kirsten Gillibrand came in with that problem of Democrats feeling that she wasn’t the best — many Democrats feeling she wasn’t the best candidate, and I don’t think she’s done a lot in the last two years. I think she’s tried, but I don’t think she’s made a lot of progress in convincing Democrats that she’s really the senator that they would pick if they really had their choice. It’s not much of a choice. I mean all of that being said, the Republican challenger that she’s facing is not well — particularly well-known, not particularly well-funded, and in a year like this when you’ve got a Cuomo and Schumer on the ballot, it seems unlikely to me that a Gillibrand is going to have enough trouble that she is going to be in danger of losing this seat. But of all the major races, she’s the one because she has failed to really garner strong Democratic support. I think she’s probably the one who faces the only real challenge.

John Sparks
And whoever wins this one will be up again three years from now.

Jay DeDapper
Yeah, well two years from now. Three years from now, but two years from Election Day…

John Sparks
True.

Jay DeDapper
Therefore, January. Yeah, this is a strange race because she was appointed, and by New York State law, once you’re appointed to fill out the seat, you don’t actually fill out the entire time. You actually have to run in the next general election so that the voters get a chance to approve or disapprove of the appointment. But then you only fill out the term as it is legislatively laid out or constitutionally laid out, and Hillary Clinton’s term was supposed to end in 2012. So Kirsten Gillibrand, should she win, will be running again in 2012. So, there’s a lot of races for her. But I suspect that with most — as with most incumbents, the longer that you — the more you’re able to get through tough races early on, the more — the better chances you have later on of fending off tough challengers and having tough races.

John Sparks
You know Charlie Rangel’s had his problems lately. Do you think that that will sway voters in his congressional district this time?

Jay DeDapper
Wel, if that was going to happen, it was going to happen in the primary. He was running against Adam Clayton Powell IV. Remember, Charlie Rangel won his historic race back in the ’70s against Adam Clayton Powell’s father. Adam Clayton Powell was a historic African American congressman. Charlie Rangel ran as the new blood, the new breed, the new guy who was going to come in and shake things up. Well, now he’s the old guy, the old guard, and Adam Clayton Powell IV didn’t come anywhere close to unseating him in the Democratic primary. And let’s face it, in our Harlem, a Republican’s not going to win in Harlem. The district that Charlie Rangel is in is one of the most Democratic districts in the entire country. So, if you don’t beat him in the primary, he’s not going to lose the race.

John Sparks
Do you see any upsets in congressional races in New York?

Jay DeDapper
Mike McMahon on Staten Island. That’s a seat that has been Republican for many years. Vito Fossella lost that or decided not to run for re-election in that seat after the scandal involving a mistress and a child. Before that, Susan Molinari held that seat. It’s been a Republican seat for a long time. Mike McMahon won it in a tight election in an overwhelmingly Democratic year, 2008. I would say that’s probably in the New York City area, the one where there’s the most risk to an incumbent, and in this case a Democrat. There’s some outside of the direct New York City area. John Hall in the Hudson Valley who won in 2004, I believe, it may have been 2006. He won in what was kind of a Democratic year. It must’ve been 2006. That’s a district that has been Republican in the past. It’s kind of a swing district, and I imagine he’s facing — I believe he’s facing a veteran, Iraq War veteran. That could be a tough race as well. And there’s some in Upstate New York, some congressional Democrats that won again in either 2006 or 2008, very strong Democratic years, in seats that have traditionally been kind of squishy, not very Democratic, a little bit more Republican, and all of them could face some problems. But in the New York City area, Mike McMahon, I think, is the only seat to really watch for an upset.

John Sparks
But, all in all for the most part, I take it that you see not very many upsets in, what, low to moderate turnout?

Jay DeDapper
Yeah. There doesn’t seem to be the passion. And even again, this goes back to my original point. If you look at what happened in the Republican primary in New York, Paladino beat Lazio, Lazio being the kind of the standard candidate of the Republican Party, by a very large margin, but the number of people who turned out was not huge. It wasn’t like 50% of Republican voters turned out. The turnout was really quite low. These are among allegedly very angry voters, the Republican voters, and they didn’t really turn out. I think that what you see in election years like what’s coming up, and we saw it in 1994, is that you have a very motivated portion of the electorate that turns out and can sway elections. I’m not denying that they can sway elections in dramatic fashion, but it’s not a majority. It’s not even a significant minority. It’s a fairly small number of people who are really upset and really angry who bother to go to the polls, and they do make a difference in years like this. I think unfortunately apathy is the more common thing that you see in a year like this, voters that are just frustrated and angry or frustrated and angry, but angry in a way that doesn’t translate into action.

John Sparks
Jay, always a pleasure to talk politics with you. Any other thoughts you’d like to share about the upcoming midterm election?

Jay DeDapper
I think it’s going to be really interesting to see if the people who have been driving the elections this year, and they’re not all Republicans and they’re not all Tea Party members, the people who have been driving elections all year all across the country have been people who are angry. Some of them are Democrats. Some Democratic incumbents have lost in primaries. It’ll be interesting to me that once you get to the general election, and everybody in the nations focused on this first major Election Day after Barack Obama became President. And if Barack Obama throws some of his weight into this, as it looks like he’s going to, it’ll be really interesting to me to see if there’s kind of a counterweight to that anger, that anti-incumbent anger, that ends up supporting some incumbents (In many cases, that would be Democrats) and whether that’s enough to offset some of this anger that seems to be aimed at ousting incumbents, including many Democrats. I think the other thing to watch for, and everybody’s talked about it, but it’s fascinating to me, is — what is the role the Tea Party plays in the future of the GOP? In Tea Party activists and in angry voters electing or putting on the ballot, excuse me, in primaries, people like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware — does that create a situation where the Republican Party in a general election is so out of the mainstream, is so filled with candidates who are so crazy that the party actually ends up blowing an incredible opportunity that’s been handed to them on a silver platter and fails to capitalize in a significant way on the intense voter dissatisfaction? That is something that I think is fascinating, and I think everybody’s looking at that. Everybody’s talking about, but that’s the big story, and I think will remain the big story all the way to Election Day.

9/22: Inside the Midterm Elections

September 22, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

On November 2nd, American voters will go to the polls and decide who will win the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans believe they have a chance to regain a majority in the Senate and recapture a number of seats in the House. But, will Tea Party candidates hurt Republican chances to re-take the Senate? What are the chances Tea Party candidates will prevail on Election Day? What does all of this say about how voters feel about the job President Obama and the Democrats are doing? The Marist Poll’s John Sparks talks with syndicated political columnist Carl Leubsdorf who writes a weekly column for the Dallas Morning News.

Carl Leubsdorf

John Sparks
Carl, we’re on the eve of the midterm elections. Now, Republicans had hoped to win back the Senate. But since the primaries began last spring in some states, the Tea Party has defeated an establishment backed GOP contender I think eight times. What are we seeing here?

Carl Leubsdorf
Well, I think we’re seeing sort of a division in the Republican Party whereas a faction of the Republican Party, reacting in part to the current economic situation and the Obama presidency, but also reacting to some degree to the Bush administration and what they felt was overspending and lack of fiscal discipline during that administration is basically calling forward sort of a return to basic Republican principles, and they’re taking on some of the establishment figures in the Republican Party who they blame for some of the problems. Actually, the people who are being taken down in some of these fights, some of them had nothing to do with it, but that’s really about it, and they’re trying to create a more aggressively conservative Republican Party, especially on economic issues.

John Sparks
We’re going to talk a little bit more about that in a minute, but I want to ask you next what sort of chance do you think these Tea Party nominees have against the Democrats in the general election?

Carl Leubsdorf
Well it depends on — entirely on the state. For example, in Utah where one of the Tea Party people took on Senator Bennett, a veteran conservative Republican, beat him in the party convention, Utah’s so Republican that they’re going to elect a Republican Senator. The same thing in Alaska where Joe Miller ousted Senator Lisa Murkowski, a more moderate Republican, in the primary. If it’s a two-way race between Joe Miller, the Republican, and the Democratic candidate, the Republicans will win because Alaska is a pretty conservative state. However, in Delaware, which had its primary on Tuesday, this is a Democratic leading state these days. It used to be much more evenly divided, and even the Republicans say that their candidate is so conservative and her credentials, so questionable that by beating — they beat the one Republican, Congressman Mike Castle, who was — had an excellent chance to win that race. He might’ve even had a chance if the Democrats had nominated Vice President Biden’s son, who’s the state attorney general. So, with him — Castle out of the race and Tea Party candidate Republican in, even the Republicans think they can’t win it. So, it really depends on state-by-state.

John Sparks
I read a short time ago that the Republican Party said that they would be backing Christine O’Donnell, but do you think they really will? Will she get the backing of the Republicans? Will she…

Carl Leubsdorf
She’ll get the official backing, and their policy — this is John Cornyn, the Texas Senator who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Their policy is to back the party nominee, and they’ll do that. However, as someone pointed out today, in order to run a competitive race in Delaware, you have to buy television time in Philadelphia which covers a good deal of the state, and that’s an expensive media market, and I can’t see the Republican Senate Committee spending a lot of money in Philadelphia on that race. So, yes, they’re backing them, but they’ll have their priorities, and that’s not going to be one of them.

John Sparks
Do you see Republicans burying the hatchet within their own ranks and unifying in order to be viable against Democrats?

Carl Leubsdorf
I think at some places they are and some places they’re not. For example, in Kentucky where Rand Paul, the son of Congressman Ron Paul, defeated the establishment candidate to win the Senate nomination, Mitch McConnell, the other Senator from Kentucky, who’s the Senate Republican leader, has made peace with Paul even though he backed Trey Grayson, his opponent, because he figures there’s a good chance Paul’s going to be the other Senator from Kentucky, and he wants to bring him inside the tent. But, Mike Castle in Delaware isn’t going to do anything for the woman who beat him, and you could easily… It’s a fascinating situation because you could have a situation in the Senate… the Republicans are all saying, “After the Delaware race, our chances of winning the Senate are diminished,” and that’s always been a threat. Since Rand Paul won his race, that has been a threat, and since Sharron Angle in Nevada won the nomination against Harry Reid, that the Republicans would fall short in the Senate because of a couple of these people who would be too conservative, too right wing to be elected. However, if the Republicans do win the Senate, and it’s certainly still possible, you could have a situation where they have a very minimal majority, 51 to 49, and that that majority is going to depend on a couple of these Tea Party people, so that could be a fascinating situation. The fact is that whichever party wins the Senate next year with 51/52 seats, because it takes 60 votes to get so much done in the Senate, neither party’s going to have a working majority in the Senate. But, I think some of the Tea Party people having succeeded in party primaries this year, they think this is just the beginning.

John Sparks
Carl, we typically think of the midterms as a time when the party out of power historically makes gains against the party in power. And, with this emergence of these Tea Party primary victories, and we’re seeing what appears to be in some sense sort of a civil war within the ranks of the Republicans, how do you think all of this is reflecting on the Obama administration?

Carl Leubsdorf
Well, the problem it poses directly for the Obama administration is it’s created quite a bit of enthusiasm in the Republican Party, and so the turnout for the Republicans in their primaries this year has on the whole been greater than that for Democrats. That is sometimes an indicator of what will happen. The converse of it is that you have a situation in the Democratic Party where there’s some disappointment in the Democratic Party that Obama hasn’t done more. Now, he’s passed a lot of his major initiatives, but you’ve got liberals who wanted single payer in the health bill and didn’t get it, and then you got some conservative Democrats who don’t like the health bill at all. Democratic turnout seems likely to be down. Turnout is a big factor in midterm elections. Not as many people vote in them as vote in presidential elections, and the Democrats were helped in ’06 in the Congressional election, ’08 in the Presidential election by a big increase in turnout, especially minorities and young voters. If those folks don’t turn out this year, the electorate will be older, whiter, more conservative, and that’s going to help the Republicans. So, the enthusiasm in the Republican Party of the Tea Party people is certainly going to help them some at least in this midterm election.

John Sparks
You know, it’s interesting that President Obama based his campaign on change and now it’s the Tea Party members within the ranks of the Republicans who are calling for change within the ranks of the Republican Party. Has change become everyone’s mantra these days?

Carl Leubsdorf
Oh, it’s always been. I’m old enough to remember when Dwight Eisenhower ran for president after 20 years of Democratic White House control, and the motto of the campaign was “It’s time for a change.” ,And, John Kennedy was going to get American moving again. The out party always talks about change. Now, of course, some of the change that the Tea Party folks and that some of the Republicans want, the Democrats will tell you this isn’t very much change because they’re talking about a policy on taxes, which — extending all the Bush tax cuts, which is basically what was done during the Bush years. They’re talking about cutting domestic spending. They tried that in the Reagan years. They talked about that when the Republicans won Congress in 1994. So, how much of a change this is, it’s a changeover of Bush policy where the second President Bush certainly spent an awful lot and had big deficits, but change is in the eye of the beholder I guess like beauty.

John Sparks
Let’s talk about New York for a minute. Rick Lazio lost out in his bid to be the Republican nominee for governor. What chances does Carl Paladino have in New York?

Carl Leubsdorf
Well, I think he had about as much chance as Rick Lazio would’ve had, which isn’t very much. You know, what’s happened in New York, and in some degree it happened in Delaware too, is that the old moderate Republican faction in New York represented by Governor Rockefeller, Senator Jacob Javits, a lot of those folks aren’t Republicans any more. They’re either independents or Democrats. And, as the Republican… and the same thing is true in Delaware. As the Republican Party has gotten smaller, the conservatives are the ones who are left, and they can control primaries, but they can’t win statewide elections. Someone predicted today that the main difference of Paladino winning the Republican nomination because Rick Lazio will already be on the ticket as the Conservative Party nominee, is that Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic candidate for governor, instead of winning 70 to 30 over one of them will win 70 to 15 to 15 over the two of them. This is a real long shot for the Republicans. The Republican Party in New York is in terrible shape. They have a terrible time electing statewide candidates. They’re down to like two or three House members in the whole delegation. Although, the chances are they’re going to pick up a couple of those this year.

John Sparks
Carl, we’ve certainly seen polarization between Democrats and Republicans, and now it appears that we’re seeing certainly polarization more so within their respective parties. What effect is this having on our government being able to operate?

Carl Leubsdorf
Well, I remember 20-30 years ago when everyone said it was ridiculous to have two parties that were coalitions and wouldn’t it be better if one party was the conservative party and one party was the liberal party? Well, as it turns out, that’s not better. It’s worse. It’s created this polarized situation. When both parties were coalitions, there was much more room for compromise between them, but compromise in Washington has become a dirty word. A Republican who works with the Democrats gets in trouble. Take the case of Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, certainly a good card carrying Republican on all issues, except he’s worked with the Democrats on environmental issues a little bit, and he supported the Democratic Supreme Court nominees as qualified, and his — a couple of his own committees in South Carolina passed resolutions saying that he wasn’t a good Republican. There was an interesting poll taken at Allegheny College some months ago, and one of the questions was: Do you think it’s better for politicians to try to compromise the other side or to stand up for their principles? And, most Republicans said they ought to stand up for their principles, and more Democrats said it’s better to compromise with the other side. That in a nutshell is what we see happening.

John Sparks
Carl, we’re a couple of journalists. We’ve been talking horse race. There’s a lot of criticism about concentrating on the horse race. Is it an inescapable trap that we’ve fallen into in covering elections since the technology has changed the way that elections are covered?

Carl Leubsdorf
Well, elections are about who’s going to win after all, and one of the questions in this election as in many is: What will happen if the side that’s out — because what will happen in policy depending on how the outcome was? Now, Barack Obama when he campaigned for president promised he would have a more aggressive government in fighting economic issues. He said he would try to pass national health reform. He said he would try to work on climate control, and that’s what he’s done as president with some success; although, the true success of it if it proves to be successful will be long-term which is one of his problems. The Republicans haven’t quite said in this election what they would do if they got in. They’re concentrating on saying “no” to the Democrats at this stage. But, the policy implications of this election, there are always policy implications in any election. I think most of us expect a pretty gridlock situation in Washington no matter how this election comes out. You got a Democrat in the White House. He’s not going anywhere. You have a fairly good chance the Republicans will win the House, and you got a good chance that the Senate won’t be able to act one way or the other whichever party gets control. That’s a prescription for gridlock. And, a lot of the issues that are out there, like taxes and some of the pending issues, are going to be — not much is going to be done about them until after the next presidential election and perhaps it sorts out. Now, we thought that would happen after ’08, and it did to some degree. That’s why Obama has been able to pass some of the things he’s been able to pass. But, because of the unemployment situation, the economy, and the fact that what Obama has done hasn’t been that popular in part because people don’t see how it affects them in the short-term, now people want to change that. So, we’ll see. But, at this time of an election campaign, it’s really about who’s going to win and who’s going to lose, and that’s what we’re talking about.

John Sparks
Carl, it’s always a pleasure talking with you. Anything else you’d like to add?

Carl Leubsdorf
No, I think that one factor that… there’s still a few… Newt Gingrich made a good point today. He said, “This election isn’t over. The Democrats have a lot of money.” And, that’s… for one, we’re so eager to declare the result of an election, even though it’s not going to take place for two months, but there is of course, always the possibility that the Democrats — something will happen in the next couple of months that will get the Democratic turnout up enough so that instead of losing between 40 and 50 seats, they lose 35 seats in the House and manage to keep control of the House and keep a narrow majority in the Senate. But, because of the Senate situation, it’s going to be very hard for them to get much done anyway, but there is — there’s always the outside chance that things won’t go the way they’ve been. But, this election, it looks like for weeks and weeks, it’s been pretty much… the numbers have not changed. They go up a little bit They go down a little bit. My friend Peter Hart, the veteran Democratic pollster and one of the best in the business, said that he thinks that there’s not any question about whether the hurricane is going to hit the Democrats. It’s going to hit them. What we don’t know is whether it’s going to be a Category 5 hurricane or a Category 4 hurricane. So, I think that’s probably true, and it doesn’t look like a good year for the Democrats. But, until they count the votes, there’s always the possibility of something different.

John Sparks
Well, what do you see on the hurricane front two years from now when the White House is up?

Carl Leubsdorf
Oh, that’s a long way away. The idea that Barack Obama would be elected was certainly just a distant thought at this point four years ago, but I do think that the Republicans have a basic problem. At the moment, they don’t have a strong candidate against Obama, and the same split we’ve seen in state after state is likely to manifest itself during the primary campaign. Clearly, the leading figure in the Republican Party in terms of popularity within the party and as a dynamic force is Sarah Palin, and there are a lot of Republicans who think that they would love to have her heading their ticket next time. But, the last poll I saw showed that 71% of Americans thought that she was not qualified to be president, and half of the Republicans polled felt that way. So, if that happens, she’s going to have a tough time winning an election. However, if unemployment is still 10%, anything becomes possible. But, you’re going to see a very bitter Republican fight, and we know who some of the players are, but we don’t know who all of the players are, and we certainly don’t know how it’s going to come out. So, that’s going to have a big impact. Every elected president since Jimmy Carter has been re-elected. Every American president who won — brought his party back into the White House has won a second term in the last 50-60 years except for Jimmy Carter. The presidents who were beaten for re-election like the first President Bush and Herbert Hoover were extending their parties hold on the White House. So, the norm will be for Obama to be favored and to be re-elected, but I guess rules in politics, like everything else, were made to be broken, so we’ll see.

Poll: Obama Approval Rating at 45% … Economic Views a Factor

Interview: Bonnie Angelo Discusses the Political Climate Leading Up To the Midterm Elections