Election 2014 could be year of the 'anti-incumbent,' pollsters say

At a time when Congress is 'universally despised,' the climate for Election 2014 could be especially unfavorable for incumbents, more than anti-Democrat or anti-Republican, Celinda Lake of the bipartisan Battleground Poll said March 25.

Michael Bonfigli/ The Christian Science Monitor
Celinda Lake and Ed Goeas, pollsters for the Battleground Poll, speak at the Monitor Breakfast for reporters on March 25 in Washington, DC.

Bipartisan pollsters Celinda Lake and Ed Goeas jointly produce the George Washington University Battleground Poll. Ms. Lake, a Democrat, is president of Lake Research Partners. Mr. Goeas, a Republican, is president of The Tarrance Group. They were guests at the March 25 Monitor Breakfast.

The Democrats' disadvantage in expected turnout in 2014:

Lake: "Turnout is our challenge, and there are some pretty dramatic numbers ... 64 percent of Republicans are extremely likely to vote, only 57 percent of Democrats. But that drops down to 36 percent among young people [who are Democrats]."

President Obama's job approval:

Goeas: "We have seen him go from a problem with a part of the electorate to a problem with all the electorate in terms of strong support."

Democrats' ability to turn major Republican donors into a campaign issue:

Goeas: "Trying to make the Koch brothers into ... red meat [for the party base] is going to be about as effective as what we tried to do ... with [people like] George Soros. Most people didn't know who they were."

Voter response to Congress:

Lake: "Both parties in Congress are universally despised.... It could be more of an anti-incumbent year rather than an anti-Democrat or anti-Republican year."

Middle-class voters:

Goeas: "They are very hopeful about the future economically ... [but] they don't think they are doing well now."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.