Gallup Predicts A Ruling Party Rout In The Midterms Based On Obama's Popularity Rating

Tyler Durden's picture

Gallup presents some troubling statistics for the democrats as we approach mid-term elections (a mere three months away). In a nutshell, the party of a president who has a sub-50% rating into midterms, has lost, on average, 36 seats since 1946. Alternatively, presidents with a popularity rating over 50%, lose just 14. As Gallup says: "The clear implication is that the Democrats are vulnerable to losing a significant number of House seats this fall with Barack Obama's approval rating averaging 45% during the last two full weeks of Gallup Daily tracking. The Republicans would need to gain 40 House seats to retake majority control."

Of course, the administration (and its dwindling members) is well-aware of this fact, which is why the next three months will likely see a record amount of pandering, populism and outright manipulation of everything that can be manipulated: that includes mortgages rates, and of course, stocks. Which leads us to observe the calendar of FOMC meetings until November: there are two - tomorrow and September 21. However, for a Fed loosening decision to have a material impact, the September meeting is likely cutting it too close to the election date, as the market will likely not have enough time to digest a favorable outcome, or in turn will be into its reactionary phase by the time November rolls around. Furthermore, the traditionally busy post-Labor day docket will likely mean events on the economic front already have to be in motion by then. Lastly, the fact that the Fed will have just a bare minimum quorum of just four directors through September 10 (at a minimum), means that any decision in the 11 days between then and the 21st will likely be far more problematic than one which has to be taken tomorrow. Which is why from a purely political calendar point of view, tomorrow's Fed meeting is likely seen by the administration as a make or break. The tenuous 40 seat lead which will likely disappear should the current economic trajectory not change, is certainly on the radar for both Obama, and the very independent Federal Reserve.

More observations from Gallup:

On a historical basis, the Democrats under Jimmy Carter suffered the slimmest seat loss of a party whose president was below 50% approval, losing 11 seats in the 1978 midterms. More recently, Bill Clinton in 1994 and George W. Bush in 2006 saw their parties lose enough seats in the House to turn party control over to the opposition party when they had less than majority approval.

The president's party nearly always loses seats in midterm elections, regardless of how well the president is rated by the public. Since World War II, only Clinton in 1998 and Bush in 2002 saw their parties gain seats in a midterm. Both men had approval ratings above 60% at the time of those elections. However, the parties of the other three presidents with ratings above 60% (Eisenhower in 1954, Kennedy in 1962, and Reagan in 1986) lost seats.

In general, though, the more popular a president is, the fewer seats his party loses, as presidents with approval ratings above 60% have averaged just a three-seat loss.

Bottom Line

With the Democratic Party in control of the White House and Congress, and key predictors of midterm seat change -- including presidential approval, congressional approval, and national satisfaction -- below average historically, the Democrats are clearly fighting an uphill battle this midterm election year.

And below is the empirical evidence:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
homersimpson's picture

I'm voting for whoever will stop Obama/Pelosi/Reid from spending taxpayer money at 3x the rate W did (and it's funny how most Obamacrats hate W so much but Obama is basically copying the W game plan by 3x). Throw the bums out.

Dagny Taggart's picture

Then we'll get to sweat out the possibility of a lame-duck Congress ramming through Cap & Trade. I wonder what the commodity charts will look like then?

Bill D. Cat's picture

They try Cap and Trade , I'm going into the pitchfork making business .

optimator's picture

Pitchfork business?  You'd be better off going into the applecart or handbasket making business.

lynnybee's picture

.....this 'cap & trade' thing .......... Is China or India going to participate in 'cap & trade' ?   Are they going to be paying taxes based upon their carbon footprint ?   OR, is it just the UNITED STATES of AMERICA & EUROPE ?      I WILL PARTICIPATE IN CAP & TRADE WHEN CHINA & INDIA ALSO PARTICIPATE !!!   after all, I'm sure they are a hell of a lot more destructive to the environment that a deindustrialized UNITED STATES of AMERICA !!  ............ who's idea is this anyway, another ROBERT RUBIN / CLINTON / SUMMERS  SCAM !!   BUNCH OF SCAMMING LOW - LIFE / GREEDY ..... well, if I wasn't a lady I'd swear right here.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture


First and foremost, cap and trade would create a maasive amount of dead weight on the economy, and is probably the stupidest thing economics has ever been confronted with.  Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night thinking, 'Europe did cap and trade in my dream!' and then I realize that they got hosed for real. 

As for your question, the NWO Copenhagen conference tried to twist the third world's arm but they smartly refused.  Now the Blue-blood Fem Dems are trying to go for broke with it, but it looks to fail.  I would not worry too much about cap and trade, for the time being at least.

Problem Is's picture

Can JPM and GS make billions trading carbon credits and derivatives on said credits?

Then Jamie and Lloyd say:

"Dance bribed puppet bitchez in Congress..."

"Pass crap n' trade before we turn the Wall Street money whore spigot off..."

hound dog vigilante's picture


Goldman Sachs literally wrote the Cap & Trade legislation. Every single syllable is intended to grow the bankster's wallets.

Cap & Trade has absolutely NOTHING to do with lowering emissions or "saving the environment".


BarrySoetoro's picture

Almost nothing...I think we can agree that it will produce some mighty "green pastures" for the chosen few.

toeser's picture

Do you know who would profit big-time if Cap & Tax were to pass?  Al Gore.  He set up a firm with a couple of x-Goldman guys to trade the credits.  But I'm sure he just has our welfare in mind.

RKDS's picture

after all, I'm sure they are a hell of a lot more destructive to the environment that a deindustrialized UNITED STATES of AMERICA !!

Hell, they're more destructive than we were when we were industrialized even...

Shameful's picture

Politcally they have.  By passing an economy killer they can then wheel around and blame  the Red party in the next election.  So not only does it fill their pockets it gives the Blues a chance to get back into power.  How could they not try it?

steffi's picture

Do you consider the loss of revenue from tax cuts "spending?"

Ragnar D's picture

I love when economics is practiced as a static science, where people do not react to incentives.


It's like the shopkeeper's friend telling him he's stupid for cutting the price of Cokes from $1.50 to $1.  If you're selling 100 a day, it's costing you $50!  Just raise the price to $2 and you'll make $200 more!

homersimpson's picture

This question would be relevant if the US government realized they have a spending problem and not a revenue problem. The day I feel guilty over a tax cut is when a bureaucrat can spend a dollar better than a taxpayer can.

I'm not saying tax cuts will cure all ills (read: the government does need money to function) but to see the Obamacrats and W spend like drunken sailors (at taxpayers' expense) at a rate that exceeds incoming revenue is unacceptable.'s picture

the government does need money to function

That's a god reason to end all taxation. That and that fact that any involuntary takings constitute theft.

All services supposedly provided by government can be performed better by players in the free market. No, I do not support the Republican "privatization" agenda in which we continue to fork over half of everything we earn to the government and have them spend it for us in a slightly different way than they spend it now. Let each person pick and chose the services he wishes from the providers he finds to be most satisfactory.

That's what they call "liberty," folks!

New_Meat's picture

"That's a god reason..."

God thinks so too.

- Ned's picture

JOEL: Ned?

ELAINE: What is wrong with Ned?

JOEL: Ned's a guy who buys irregular underwear. Next!

Attitude_Check's picture

So you think a contracted out judicial system is OK (and who would pay for it?). A mercenary army (be very sure your adversary doesn't offer more money!).  We should end any pretence of financial regulation (who would pay the regulators - OK I know we have this already, and look how good it works!).  The police forces should all be contracted (I'm sure there wouldn't be ANY conflict of interest in enforcing the law would there?).

Milestones's picture

Right between the horns!!  Milestones

DoctoRx's picture

(Typo, popular Presidents' party loses 14 seats, not 14%)

Comment:  The first rxn is:  who cares, still Establishment/PTB rule.

Second rxn:  On the margin, perhaps there could be some beneficial gridlock or at least restraint on the Executive if the Outs get In. 

1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

Left, right, up, down there is no difference. They all work for the same people "IE" GS,JPM, etc. WE the people have to get off our butt's , vett these sucker's w/o the help of the MSM. And educate the sheep who refuse to open their eye's. There are actually some honest patriot's running, but it seems to always be left or right. What about right or wrong?

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

"What about right vs. wrong?"

I know right, which is which?  Well, as society progressed (and this is tribal or in a city/state) we cultivated mores to accept certain situations as "well adjusted".  When people did not meet these standards, they were in trouble.  If that was a tribe ousting someone, or a city taking your eye, there were certain things that were unalienable.  No stealing, killing, etc....

Unfortunately society became complacent with the advancement of easy life/easy monie.  The web spinners at the top got everyone in their game, and the name was "Wild West".  So now politicians steal just as the clerk behind the counter.  I really do think society reflects the oilgarchs' characteristics accurately, which is interesting when you know that the oilgarchs hate the, sheeple, as you put it.  I wish I could tell the Rockefellers that they are as inept as the people who buy their products.  We are all cut from the same clothe, the only difference is what you make of it.  Luckily for us we were born to be shining stars.  So now as the economy's facade fades into oblivion, we see our glow.  This right before we sweat it all out.

Truth will prevail, in the end.  It always does.  It is nature's way.'s picture

So now politicians steal just as the clerk behind the counter.

Politician were not only stealing long before there were clerks behind counters, the very nature of the political being is criminal. Are we not men?

1fortheroad's picture

Has anyone heard of these people.

(RAP & Republic of the United States )


Just wondering, been reading about them for a few days now.

MaximumPig's picture

While you're at it, please also educate the sheep not to use superfluous apostrophes.

chet's picture

Now if only the GOP could state a single policy goal.

(You won't hear boo about "repealing healthcare" after the election.  Remember the 2004 "stop gay marraige" election, where the topic completely vanished off the face of the earth the day after the polls closed?)

New_Meat's picture


"Now if only the GOP could state a single policy goal."

I'm kinda' with you on that, but, y'know, when the other side is committing suicide, well, it a'int bean bag, so sorta' step back and enjoy the show.

I'm hoping for a great show for all the incumbents.

Show-me State did a great thing with 71% anti-Obama-care.

"You won't hear boo about "repealing healthcare" after the election."

I'm probably not with you on that, and certainly not on your side of the trade.  I'd say that the outrage is going to stop funding, block the bloated bureaucrats, slow things down.

After all, we know that it takes years to control the people (Paul W.-WJR).

- Ned

BobWatNorCal's picture

Um, 71%? But...Juan Williams said only old, fat white people voted against.
You're saying that MO has 70% old white people?

Rainman's picture

The thought of one party jackass rule for another 2 years is too horrible to imagine. So I'll kill my imagination. Time for a Scotch, no chaser.

Shameful's picture

We've had 1 party rule for a long time.  Right now the skirmish team on offense is wearing the blue jersey.  Changing the offense to the red jersey won't fix much.

Gold...Bitches's picture

exactly.  you can have your choice of coke, or pepsi - sure they taste different, but they'll both rot your teeth...

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Rotting teeth is the least of worries.

Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury:

Cathartes Aura's picture

"Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered."

mmmmmmMercury, filling your teeth, filling your belly, filling your mind.

add the fluoride in the water, the aluminium & barium salt particulates being intentionally sprayed in the air. . . ahh, we've never had it so good!

OldTrooper's picture


Drink the good stuff.  Life's too short for cheap scotch!

I am a Man I am Forty's picture

Watch how lightning fast lobby money transfers to the new assholes

Rainman's picture

Right on. The gangsters like it the way it is......moving their kickback money between 2 parties. That's why they want nothing to do with a Third Party candidate. Third parties are not part of the cartel and have what the Bigs believe are destructive habits like thinking independently and favoring populist will.

Two parties, both in the game and pointing fingers at each other is the perfect setup. The trick is making sure the sheeple never figure out that it's a setup....that it is the devil convincing the world he doesn't exist.  

The Answer Is 42's picture

Problem is I think republicans would be even worse, especially considering what they did to FinReg.

lizzy36's picture

Great.  Looking forward to the party of Mitch McConnell (with McCain and Grassley) starting the hearings to "look into" the 14th Amendment. 

That will be a proud day for the US.


Suisse's picture

Yes, the 14th amendment needs to be clarified. Jus Soli is silly, only the U.S. and Canada practice it in the present form.

Treeplanter's picture

We can stop the anchor baby fiasco without touching the 14th Amendment.  These idiots haven't read the amendment, short as it is.  Surprise.

WaterWings's picture

WTF. Guess 10 junkers didn't get the sarcasm.

Madhouse's picture

I ain't no Obama fan but that there summary sounds pretty goddam dumb, the total deficit went from 5 to 11.5 trillion in dumb ass Bush's term of 8 years so a goddamm annual rate of about 11%. Obama does the second chunk of the stimulus when he gets in 1/20/09 and deficit goes from 11.5 to 13.5 so a rate of just over 11%. So, both are dumb asses in my book, boya, but where the heck you gettin' yer 3x numbers ? Shit Jethro, its that kind of numerin' that's killin' us in the first place...

BTW, who is dumber, Pelosi or Palin ?  Register your answer...  mine is that I hope that I never see the names of either one of them in my fuckin life.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

It's all good Madhouse.  What you are FED up with is the Hegelian dialectic that the status quo is using to dice up the population into thinking that all is as simple as right vs wrong/black vs. white.  There is no spoon, you know!

Aaron Russo's - MAD AS HELL - 1 of 9: