Monday punditry, "follow the money" edition.
Greenberg and Carville:
But hope springs eternal. With the White House and Democratic Congressional leaders mired in the impeachment battle, we decided to conduct the same survey again. This time, though, the results were different. Three in five respondents said they were more likely to vote for candidates who wanted to "bring the impeachment to an end in 30 days" and who said: "The country has had enough. My main goal is to get Congress to focus on the needs of American families." What’s more, this message enabled Democratic candidates to improve their margin in the survey by six points.
We promptly sent out an alert to Democrats that voters were open to other messages as they started to feel that the Republicans had gone too far. Meanwhile, Republicans doubled down on their misguided strategy — highlighting the impeachment and the ensuing scandal with a late advertising blitz.
And the result?
Democrats surprised everyone: no net losses in the Senate and a net gain of five seats in the House — the best showing for the incumbent president’s party in a midterm election since 1934. Newt Gingrich resigned.
LA Times: see above, and see:
For both Democrats, the month between the two polls found the party's strongest supporters rallying to the candidates' sides: liberals, women and Latinos either solidified or expanded their backing for Brown and Boxer. Nonpartisan voters, whom Republicans had counted on to overcome the Democratic advantage in voter registration, moved away from the two Republican candidates, and moderate voters also tilted toward the Democrats.
There's life in the Democrats yet, at least on the coasts.
But of course (NY Times) , they are being outspent:
The anonymously financed conservative groups that have played such a crucial role this campaign year are starting a carefully coordinated final push to deliver control of Congress to Republicans, shifting money among some 80 House races they are monitoring day by day.
WaPo:
In an unruly, unpredictable and chaotic election year, no group has asserted its presence and demanded to be heard more forcefully than the tea party. The grass-roots movement that was spawned with a rant has gone on to upend the existing political order, reshaping the debate in Washington, defeating a number of prominent lawmakers and elevating a fresh cast of conservative stars.
But a new Washington Post canvass of hundreds of local tea party groups reveals a different sort of organization, one that is not so much a movement as a disparate band of vaguely connected gatherings that do surprisingly little to engage in the political process...
Seventy percent of the grass-roots groups said they have not participated in any political campaigning this year. As a whole, they have no official candidate slates, have not rallied behind any particular national leader, have little money on hand, and remain ambivalent about their goals and the political process in general.
Don't worry. They'll be co-opted and used by Rove, Armey, Palin and others just as social conservatives always have been.
WaPo on bailed-out corporations giving to Republicans who rail against the bailout that saved the companies:
And GM is not alone: companies that received federal bailout money, including some that still owe the government, are giving to political candidates with vigor. Among companies with PACS, the 23 that received $1 billion or more in federal money through the Troubled Asset Relief Program gave a total of $1.4 million to candidates in September, up from $466,000 the month before.
Most of those donations are going to Republican candidates although the TARP program was approved primarily with Democratic support and President Obama expanded its use to GM and other auto makers.
Don't worry. Ross Douthat explains it's all just fine:
Nothing in this election season, no program or party or politician, is less popular than the Troubled Asset Relief Program of 2008 — a k a the Wall Street bailout. No policy has fewer public figures willing to defend it, and fewer Americans who believe it worked. No issue has done more to stoke the fires of populist backlash, and the rage against elites.
Riiight. That's why GM (see above) is giving to Republicans. Thanks for the explanation.
Politico:
A group of three Republican candidates have spent nearly a quarter-billion dollars on statewide campaigns this cycle, overshadowing even the heavyweight independent groups commonly considered the biggest financial players of the 2010 elections.
The trio of Meg Whitman in California, Rick Scott in Florida and Linda McMahon in Connecticut together have burned through more money than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Crossroads and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees have pledged to spend — combined.
It's an obscene use of money, but then again, at least two of them will lose (and maybe all three.)