Despite Democrats’ efforts to turn fundamentally economic and fiscal issues into cultural issue wedges, the election will not hinge on issues like free contraception or funding for Planned Parenthood.

The White House will go to the candidate who voters believe truly has a plan to create jobs and grow the economy.

Obama bookends his chastising of Chinese trade practices with sections on the need for government help for American manufacturers and the need for government help for American workers. This decision belies the coherence of his stance. When other countries take steps to make their industries more competitive, it’s cause for indignation. Yet Obama proposes an array of policies that would give special treatment to favored sectors here at home without any sense of irony.

His proposals include a double-size tax deduction for high-tech manufacturers and public financing for the building of plants and the purchase of new equipment. He calls for federal funding for job-training programs and wants Congress to step in to keep student loan interest rates artificially low.

Read more at dailycaller.com.

In his acclaimed recent speech in Osawatomie, Kan., President Barack Obama articulated what has become the dominant liberal explanation of the issues America faces. “Inequality gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder,” he said.

The president correctly identifies the injustice inherent in rewarding the rich with undue political influence. Unfortunately, he misdiagnoses the source of the problem.

Obama’s mistake is a common one. He sees inequality as the root cause of our present evils, giving those “at the top” an unfair advantage when it comes to advocating for policies that benefit them. They alone have the resources to buy access and sway, thereby ensuring the “rules of the game” will always be rigged in their favor. This story makes intuitive sense, but it suffers from an obvious flaw: The real problem is not that certain individuals have the ability to “game” the system while others do not. The problem is that we’ve come to accept a system that invites itself to so easily be gamed.

To continue reading, click here.

“He has a clear track record at this point and that’s what his job approval reflects. He can’t avoid his record but it’s not like people are not willing to listen him.”

Click to read the full article.

“What he’s obviously trying to do is model himself on Harry Truman and the ‘do-nothing Congress,’ ” said David Winston, a Republican strategist. “The problem with that is that the unemployment rate in November of 1948 was 3.8 percent.”

To read the full article, access it at nytimes.com

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“It’s not an outcome difference, but there’s a pretty significant difference of opinion in terms of the process of getting there,” David Winston, a GOP strategist, told The Fiscal Times. “Some within the Tea Party are trying to get quite a bit of their agenda done right this second, using the debt ceiling. The business community wants to be more careful about how they use this device, and err on the side of caution, even if they do eventually want to go in the same direction.”

To read the full article, turn to: thefiscaltimes.com

•About half have a college degree or higher. That’s more than Iowa adults or Americans in general.
•The proportion who consider themselves born-again Christians hits in the high-40 percent range, slightly above the range for the rest of the nation.
•Mirroring the national picture, they’re more likely to be male, evidence of the classic gender gap between Republican voters and Democratic voters.

But even knowing the type of person the typical Iowa caucusgoer is, it’s too early to tell how turnout will be.

“If it snows heavily it could be a completely different turnout,” Republican pollster David Winston said. “You’re trying to put your finger on mercury a little bit.”

To read more, turn to usatoday.com

“She clearly represents a segment of the party that is not enough, at least at this point, to get the nomination,” said David Winston. “Once she’s outside of Iowa, if she gets there, she needs a strategy to try and reach the majority of Republicans and some Independents. I haven’t seen that yet.”

To read the full article, turn to thefiscaltimes.com

“Are those folks right to be nervous about where the organization is right now? Sure,” said Winston, who has done work in Iowa. “For Bachmann, it’s: ‘What do we do to catch up?’ But I don’t think at this point anyone could say, ‘No, she can’t do that.’”

To read the full article, turn to desmoinesregister.com

Mr. DAVID WINSTON (Republican strategist): There’s a lot he’s going to have to do to develop the substance and content because it clearly was not in that speech. And I think that’s the challenge. And part of what he’s got to manage here is how does he make having been governor of Utah and ambassador to China for President Obama appeal to Republican primary electorate? Ultimately, he hasn’t answered the substance question yet.

To read the full transcript or listen to the story, turn to npr.org

And if he gets in the race, says GOP strategist David Winston, “His challenge will be to translate what he’s done in Texas to what he’ll do for the rest of the country.”

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/17/rick-perry-and-the-vienna-convention/#ixzz1PZ2ucODE

“One of the reasons that no one has broken away from the pack is because no one has come up with a clear set of economic policies … at a time when people are unhappy with the president’s economic policies,” Winston said.

Read more at the Washington Examiner.

“The key for Newt is to focus on his policy ideas and solutions for problems facing the country, which is his strength,” said Republican pollster David Winston. “When the discussion about him is not about that, he does not do as well.”

To read the full article, turn to washingtonpost.com

“The Democrats want to cherry-pick issues and make it just about Medicare, whereas the challenge for Republicans is to broaden it to make it about economy, jobs and making government solvent, and Medicare is part of that,” Mr. Winston said.

To read the full article, turn to wsj.com

“This is a significant accomplishment. There is absolutely no question about it,” Mr. Winston said. “But the dynamic in terms of, what is the Obama Doctrine, are not necessarily the same thing. Now that this particular significant achievement has occurred, what does he do with it? Now where do we go from here?”

To read the full article, turn to nytimes.com

“I think the public is tired of the political discourse and they want to hear some substance going back and forth,” said pollster David Winston, who advises House GOP leaders.

To read the full article, turn to wsj.com

“People see through this,” Winston said. “That’s just a political gimmick. They want some real substance discussed here, and they want to hear some real policy debates — not sort of trite political advertising.”

“People believe increasing taxes hurts economic growth,” said Winston.

Winston added that when the tax debate heats up over the coming months, several facts — the U.S. corporate tax is the highest in the world and ending the Bush tax cuts on those earning $250,000 and above would impact 894,000 small businesses to name two — that aren’t widely known by the public will help Republicans ultimately win the tax debate.

To read the full article, turn to washingtonpost.com

Obama’s State of the Union idea of “out-innovating, out-educating, and out-building” the rest of the world is “interesting rhetoric,” says Republican pollster David Winston. “But a speech won’t be enough. It will have to be, ‘OK, what are you actually going to do…?’ Ultimately, he’s got a monthly report card: jobs. Either that changes or it doesn’t.”

To read more, turn to csmonitor.com

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
Q: Why doesn’t Congress develop legislation that will move us to be energy independent? Developing jobs, keeping U.S. dollars at home would probably do more to make us fiscally sound faster and without uncertainty. It means continuing to develop alternate fuels but also being realistic about our fossil fuel needs for the next 20-30 years.
A: DAVID WINSTON :
Good question. Republicans were glad to hear that the President seemed to embrace an “all of the above” approach, which would work toward alternative energy while expanding resources here at home, both in terms of oil exploration and nuclear capacity. While his rhetoric was good, we will see what his actions produce. The most critical piece will be the impact on the economy.

To read the full list of questions along with David’s answers, turn to washingtonpost.com

To access the interview, go to npr.org

“This is going to be a campaign about ideas. This is not going to be a beauty contest.”

Download the PDF Version

President Obama’s strategy for the 2010 election was to increase the Democratic base turnout. He was successful as base voter groups increased their level of participation from the 2006 election, when Democrats won by 8 points and won both the House and the Senate. Liberal Democrats, women, African-Americans, urban voters increased their participation in 2010, while younger voters and Hispanics matched their 2006 level of turnout.

But on election night, despite better base turnout than 2006, Democrats lost to Republicans by a 7 point margin. How could a slightly better turnout composition for Democrats end up generating such a dramatically different outcome?

In contrast to President Obama’s base strategy, John Boehner’s strategy was to try to build a majority coalition based on the idea of “Winning the Issues.” His belief was that in a center-right country, the center-right party should win if they focused on issues, specifically jobs and the economy in the current environment.

As a result, the closing arguments of these two strategies resulted in a decisive outcome favoring Republicans as they made significant progress with a number of important swing voter groups. But the key was their extraordinary success with the political center – Independents. In 1994, Republicans gained the majority winning Independents by a 14 point margin. In 2006, Democrats gained the majority winning Independents by 18 points. In the 2010 election, Republicans won Independents by 19 points.

The Closing Arguments: “Where are the Jobs?” was THE Central Question in the Election

John Boehner’s question “Where are the jobs?” decisively beat President Obama’s “keys to the car” analogy. Obama’s “blame the Republicans” message reflected the Democrats’ negative strategy and served as its central theme. He argued, especially in the closing weeks, that Bush policies had put the “economic car” in a ditch, and that he had spent the last two years getting it out. Now wasn’t the time to give the keys back “to the folks who got us in the ditch in the first place.” This partisan message appealed to the Democratic base, but it had an unintended consequence. It alienated swing and Independent voters by trying to make Bush and his policies the issue rather than the effectiveness of Obama’s own policies. Democrats recognized that the election was going to be held on national terms – unlike the Republicans in 2006 – but the claim that Obama had gotten the “car out of the ditch” was poorly received by voters after 14 months of 9.5% or more unemployment.

In contrast, John Boehner’s Republican narrative, derived from the “Winning the Issues” strategy, rested on one basic question—“Where are the jobs?”— reflecting the central question on voters’ minds. Republicans were generally successful in defining a new issue direction with the help of the Republican “Pledge to America,” which voters were broadly aware of even if they were not familiar with the specifics. Boehner’s emphasis on voters’ top issue—jobs—was also in direct contrast to President Obama’s agenda of the previous two years which focused on issues designed to satisfy his political base i.e. health care, cap and trade and even the stimulus package.

Voters Agreed that the House was Still on Fire

For most voters, the issue of the economy in contrast with other issues is a little like a house with a fire on the roof. While windows may be broken, electrical work needs to be done and the foundation is cracked, fixing them, important as they are, doesn’t matter until the fire is put out. That was the context of jobs and the economy in this election; and from voters’ perspective, President Obama spent too much time on other issues like cap and trade and health care rather than the fire on the roof—jobs and the economy.

Despite President Obama’s argument that the American people should not hand the keys back to the Republicans, voters did. But, the keys weren’t to a car, they were for a fire truck and the message was clear: “Put out the fire on the roof.”

In 2010, any political leader not discussing the economy and jobs was simply on the wrong topic and seemed out of touch with the concerns of the American voter. Among those who voted in 2010, according to New Models, the economy/jobs dwarfed every other issue, including health care and deficit/spending.

New Models Post-Election Survey, November 2010

In the media Exit Poll where there were just four issues to choose from, 63% of voters said the economy was the most important issue. This is not to say that other issues were not important, but rather the concern for jobs was overwhelming.

In contrast to the Republican narrative of “Where are the jobs?,” President Obama and Democrats focused on their base by attacking Republicans, leaving Independents open to hearing economic arguments from Republicans. According to the Exit Poll, among all voters who said their top issue was the economy, Republicans won by an 11 point margin and among Independents who said the economy was their top issue, Republicans won by a slightly larger margin — 15 points.

The frustration with President Obama’s major economic initiative, the stimulus plan, was seen in the Exit Poll as well. Only 32% of voters said that the plan was working, while 65% said it was hurting or making no difference. Critically, those who said the plan was making no difference voted for Republicans 57-39, an 18 point margin.

The Republican Economic Narrative Connected with Voters

77% of midterm voters agreed that “Where are the jobs?” was the central question in the election, according to the New Models post-election study.

What Republicans defined as their narrative for the election was not a partisan question. To the contrary, it was a majority coalition-building position that both addressed and tapped into voters’ fundamental beliefs. The “Where are the jobs?” question cut across party, ideology, race, age, income, region—virtually across all groups in an overwhelming way. For example…

• 78% of conservative Republicans thought this was the central question to the election
• 78% of Democrats
• 77% of Independents
• 74% of moderates
• 80% of liberals
• 75% of African-Americans
• 75% of young voters
• 83% of voters in the Midwest
• 81% of northeast voters

This question addressed the concerns of all Americans, not just one political base or the other. Since the 2008 election, the top issue in the minds of the electorate had been the economy and jobs. This was the reason why “Where are the jobs?” resonated greatly with voters across the spectrum.

Embracing a New Approach: Winning on Issues

Why was the Republican narrative so effective? For one simple reason: it was issue based. In the 2008 election, Democrats ran against the unpopular policies of George Bush and advocated “change” while Republicans ran against Obama by trying to define him as a “celebrity” using ads featuring Britney Spears and Paris Hilton rather than offering voters an argument for McCain’s economic policy. McCain didn’t lose because a less conservative electorate showed up at the polls. In fact, the 2008 electorate was farther to the right than the 2000 electorate that gave Republicans control of both the White House and the Congress. In 2000, moderates outnumbered conservatives by 20 points, 50-30. In 2008, that margin had been cut in half to 10, with moderates outnumbering conservatives 44-34.

After the 2008 election, it was clear that the key failure of the McCain campaign was its focus on personality. That strategy frittered away the Republicans’ issue advantage of a center-right party with a center-right electorate. In response to the lessons learned in the 2008 campaign, Boehner and the Republican Congressional leadership developed a strategy based on “Winning the Issues,” which set the stage for the policy battles of 2009 and 2010.

Although the President’s policy agenda was almost immediately out of sync with voters, he began his term with the political winds at his back, the kind of popularity almost all new presidents enjoy. In March of 2009, when the electorate was asked in a New Models survey which party they preferred to handle several key issues, Democrats held a huge lead in all of them, even on the issue of taxes.

But Obama’s economic policies failed beginning with his promise to hold unemployment at 8% or below. Republicans believed that his Keynesian approach to creating jobs was highly unlikely to work and from the “Winning the Issues” strategy came the “Where are the jobs?” narrative which they developed in June 2009 and sustained for the next 17 months.

The Republican “Pledge to America” was an important factor in supporting that narrative as it helped discredit the Democratic attack on the GOP as the “Party of No” with no new ideas. The “Pledge” was a central element of the “Winning the Issues” strategy, an effort to move Republicans from being an opposition party to being an alternative party and to show Republicans could govern.

Voter Confidence in Issue Handling Moves to Republicans

When voters were asked in the New Models survey which party they trusted to handle certain issues, on the issue of jobs Republicans trailed by 24 points in March 2009. On Election Day, they led by a 6 point margin. When it came to the economy, Republicans went from trailing by 20 to leading by 9. The issue of health care shows the extent of the issue handling shift toward Republicans. After having trailed by 29 points, which was not dramatically out of line with Republicans historical standing on this issue, Republicans led by 3 by the election. The last time Republicans led on the health care issue was shortly after the 1994 election.

New Models Post Election Survey, November 2010

President Obama’s health care plan may have helped with his base, but hurt Democrats’ standing with Independents, both in terms of the substance of his policies and concerns the President was on the wrong topic. In the New Models survey, voters disapproved of his health care plan by a 44-52 margin.

As a result of this disconnect and the poor performance of the economy, President Obama’s job approval on Election Day was underwater, with 44% approving and 55% disapproving. The majority coalition he built in 2008 collapsed.

In the end, the “Where are the jobs?” narrative became the glue that allowed Republicans to tie together numerous voter groups, representing a variety of economic concerns that ranged from jobs to spending to the deficit. With the Democrats sticking to a base attack strategy, economic issues at the center of discussion and the electorate more conservative on economic issues, the elements of a new center-right majority coalition were in place for a Republican win.

A Broad Based Majority Coalition Led by Independents

One of the most important outcomes of this election and one that has received little attention is the size of the Republican gains made with key swing voter groups. Republicans won the election by rebuilding a center-right majority coalition. Republicans won the election by rebuilding a center-right majority coalition.

The Republican gains with key voter groups cut across age, gender, income, region, and race to build a majority. The following table contrasts the back-to-back off-year elections of 2006 and 2010 and their dramatically different results. The table shows the size of the Republican margin with each of these important groups.

The 2010 results were significant improvements that also showed the extent to which President Obama’s majority coalition has fallen apart. Republicans won women outright, something they had not done during their previous congressional majorities. They improved with Hispanics going from 30 to 38% of their vote. Republicans won seniors by a huge margin, won suburbia, middle income, Catholics, and improved with younger voters.

New Models Post Election Survey, November 2010

Independents Make the Difference

To understand the importance of Independents, one only needs to look back to the 1994 election, when Republicans won majorities in both Houses, and 2006, the year Republicans lost their majorities. One of the great “urban legends” of modern campaign politics is the belief that Republican turnout was the reason for the GOP win in 1994 and its loss in 2006. The Exit Poll in 1994 found that 36% of the electorate was Republican, and Republicans won their base by a 91-8 margin. So what happened in 2006? 36% of the electorate said they were Republican and Republicans won them 91-8. The difference between a GOP victory and a GOP loss wasn’t base turnout; it was Republicans’ ability or inability to win Independents. In 1994, Republicans won them by 14 points. In 2006, they lost them by 18.

The key thing to understand about Independents is that they are the political center – not the ideological center, which is why Republicans are able to build center-right majorities especially when the debate is focused on economic issues. The 2010 exit poll also reflects that same center-right identification with 47% of Independents saying they were Moderate, 40% conservative, and 14% liberal – an almost 3:1 conservative to liberal margin.

The issues that were of the most concern to Independents were economic ones, with the unemployment rate leading the way, followed by government spending/national deficit. Independents were much more attuned to issues than political messages. For example, Independents were far more focused on the unemployment rate and government spending/national debt than they were about the need for a check and balance on Obama and the Democrats. While Independents are a center-right group, they want solutions from candidates. Simply blaming the opposition doesn’t resonate with these voters. This was a problem for President Obama in 2010 as he placed the blame for the economic woes of the country on Republicans arguing against a return to the Bush policies.

The stimulus plan didn’t fare well with Independents. The Exit Poll showed that 72% thought it had either hurt or made no difference, above the national average of 65%. Additionally, according to the New Models Survey, they disapproved of the health care bill by a 35-58 margin. As a result they had a very negative view of President Obama’s performance as President, with 38% approving and 61% disapproving.

Obama’s closing “car in the ditch” argument, designed to fire up the Democrat base, and Boehner’s broad based “Where are the jobs?” narrative reflected two very different strategies. The results were remarkably clear. According to the New Models survey, Independents said the Republican message made them favor Republican candidates (55-35) while the Democrat message made Independents less favorable to Democrat candidates (35-57).

In the end, independent voters massively changed direction in 2010 and voted for Republicans by a historic margin of 19 points.

New Models Post Election Survey, November 2010

The Country Shifts: The New Center-Right

After the 2008 election, there were many who believed Obama’s victory had redefined the meaning of “center-right,” which was used as a rationale for moving the country toward the left through a liberal policy agenda. That was a strategic miscalculation. This disconnect was seen immediately in the stimulus package with its focus on increased government spending. Even at the time, this policy direction did not reflect the country’s policy choices. In a CBS survey done in February 2009, the country preferred reducing taxes on business to get the U.S. out of the current recession over increasing government spending by a 59-22 margin. As the details of the stimulus plan became public, voices of concern were heard and not just in partisan circles.

Add to this the Administration’s promise to hold unemployment below 8% with quick passage of the stimulus and by May when unemployment hit 9.4%, President Obama had a major miscalculation on his hands. But instead of focusing on the economy, he went to his Democratic base on the issues of global warming/environment and health care, both of which were viewed by the public as expanding the role of government. In the Exit Poll, 56% of the country said government was doing too much that should be left to businesses and individuals, while 38% said government should be doing more.

The Tea Party Helps Shape the Political Debate

The Tea Party played a critical role in 2010 by helping focus the policy debate on economic issues. In the New Models survey, 15% of the electorate said they consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement. In the Exit Poll, voters said they supported the Tea Party by an 11 point margin, 41-30. In the New Models survey, the favorable-unfavorable for the Tea Party was 45-44, but among Independents it was 53-39. While some Tea Party candidates struggled individually, the movement’s focus on fiscal conservatism significantly impacted the political discourse on the issues that eventually decided the election.

The Tea Party joined the debate in response to Obama’s economic policies but as the campaign continued, the Tea Party movement helped delineate the ideological choice before voters in 2010. Did voters want a big government approach to fix the economy (liberal) or a smaller government approach with less spending, less taxes, and less regulation (conservative)? Because the electorate tends to be more conservative on economic issues, when the debate consistently focused on this ideological choice, voters spent more time engaged in the more conservative side of their ideology. Thus, we saw a significant shift in voter self-identification toward conservative in the 2010 exit poll.

Conservatives Make Ideological Gains

Exit polls have shown for decades that moderates have consistently been the largest voting bloc with conservatives second, significantly outnumbering liberals. Until 2010, the nearest conservatives had come to moderates in self-identification was 8 points in 1994 (37-45).

In this election, conservatives emerged as the largest ideological voting bloc—a significant result, which produced the largest shift in Congressional seats in 60 years. During the time-period from 1984 through 2008, moderates had never made up less than 40%, and conservatives never more than 40%. Both groups shifted in this election as moderates fell to 38% and conservatives went up to 42%.

Clearly, the voters’ shift to the right in self-identification was a key factor in this election. When voters were asked in New Models to characterize their present ideology on a scale of 1 to 9, with 1 being very liberal, 5 being moderate, and 9 being very conservative, voters placed themselves at a 5.9. When asked where they would put themselves five years ago voters put themselves slightly to the left of where they are today, supporting the notion of an ideological shift as seen from the Exit Poll.

When asked where they would place Republicans in Congress, voters put them to the right of themselves at 6.44, and placed Democrats in Congress far to the left at 3.54. President Obama was viewed slightly farther to left than Democrats in Congress. Democrats and liberals viewed him as in the center, while Republicans, Independents, conservatives, and Moderates viewed him to the left. Voters, particularly Independents, place themselves closer to Republicans than Democrats. This difference is the strategic advantage a center-right party has in this country. When Republicans aren’t talking about issues, they lose that advantage. The center-right nature of the American electorate has historically been and remains the potential foundation for Republican majorities. When Republican efforts focus on winning issues, as in 1980 and 1994 and now 2010, the results are positive.

Conclusion

What is particularly interesting is that the strategies of both President Obama and John Boehner achieved their objectives; the Democratic base turnout was higher than what it was in 2006 and Republicans were able to build a center-right coalition. The obvious conclusion is that Boehner’s was a winning strategy, while Obama’s was a losing one. In fact, Obama’s strategy helped Boehner’s be successful, as it never competed for votes in the center, and the Democratic political discourse helped move the political center toward the Republicans.

In the end, President Obama’s base strategy versus Boehner’s center-right majority coalition strategy reinforced two political lessons learned now over several elections.

1. Neither the Republican nor the Democratic base is large enough to produce a majority.
2. As a center-right party in a center-right country, Republicans have a strategic advantage if the party focuses on winning the issues.

Methodology:
New Models Survey conducted by The Winston Group among 1,000 people election night who voted in the 2010 midterm elections.
Media Exit Polls conducted by Edison Research among 17,504 voters on election day who voted in the 2010 midterm elections at the House level.

Download the PDF Version

…David Winston cautioned that money and visibility don’t necessarily translate into votes, and right now, the party still largely supports the war.

“I think generally, within the party on the Republican side, there’s a sense that if we’re going to succeed in the war on terror, one of the specific items we have to have success on is Afghanistan,” said Winston. “So the two are intertwined.”

To read the entire article, turn to huffingtonpost.com

When Republicans lost in 2006, we lost independents by 18 points. In this election, we won independents by 18 points. That’s the difference between being in the majority and minority. In 1994, when we won, we won them by 14 points. The political center is where you build your majority coalition. And that’s the lesson to be learned from this election.

To listen to the entire interview or read the transcript, turn to npr.org

“What you’re pointing toward is a critical element in understanding where this election is going,” says David Winston, a well-known GOP pollster in Washington, D.C. “Has the electorate moved that much in terms of its ideology? Given what we’ve seen in previous years, based on election-year exit poll surveys, the numbers we’re seeing now are dramatically different. The question is, are they correct?”

The article also includes insight pulled from The WG’s Kristen Soltis, from her recent Huffington Post piece.

To read the entire article on Wisconsin’s electorate, turn to jsonline.com

One ray of hope for Democrats is that 28 percent of working-class whites in the AP-GfK Poll say they may still switch candidates. Republicans say it’s too late.

“Obama and Democrats have had almost two years to try to get things back on track,” said GOP pollster David Winston.

To access the full article, click to apnews.myway.com

Independents, as Republican strategist David Winston notes, were the key to the GOP takeover of Congress in ’94 and the key to the Democratic takeover in ’06. Right now, they are leaning heavily toward the GOP, and if Democrats cannot win substantial numbers of them back, that thunderstorm will turn back into a tsunami.

To read the full article, go to cbs.com

Clearly, the Obama administration misread voters. When they asked for change, they weren’t asking for a trilliondollar spending lurch to the left. Despite Obama’s victory, media exit polls have consistently shown that the country remained ideologically where it has been for the past 25 years: center-right.

Read the full piece here: PDF Version

“I don’t think there’s been a door more open for an opposition party to do well – certainly better than 1994,” the last time the Republicans took control of both houses, said David Winston, a pollster who advises the House Republican leadership.

Access the entire article at washingtonpost.com

“I don’t get it,” GOP pollster David Winston told me at the time. “I don’t understand what he is doing. He’s not addressing the No. 1 issue that Americans want him to address.”

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/Obama_s-_pivot_-to-the-economy-comes-far-too-late-758971-102304584.html#ixzz0yxNfTksO

“The purpose of a political party is to not to win elections but to prove you are ready to govern,” said David Winston, a Republican pollster, quoting British Prime Minister David Cameron. “One of the elements that has to be addressed is the fact that people remember Republicans from 2006. The electorate was not satisfied. They weren’t getting things done. They fired them. Republicans have to address those concerns.”

To read more, click to bnd.com

Kristen Soltis chats with Mark Blumenthal of pollster.com and Patrick Ruffini from Engage about the latest primaries, the Ground Zero mosque, moveon.org and some big changes for pollster.com and engage (engagedc.com).

“Ultimately, it will be a race about content,” says Mr. Winston. “Especially now, given concern on the Republican side about where this country is headed, voters want to hear how are you going to govern and where would you take this country.

To read the full breakdown of possible candidates, click to alaskadispatch.com

“Basically, the public does not think now is the time to increase taxes, by any stretch,” he said. “Ultimately, it’s going to come back to the Democrats to prove that they’re not increasing taxes on small businesses, which, given the number of small businesses that [fall into high income-tax brackets], they’re not going to be able to do.”

To read more, click to thewashingtontimes.com

“Part of the dynamic here is the way President Obama and congressional Democrats govern ha[s] opened this door wide open for Republicans, but the public at this point isn’t just simply saying, ‘Look at how bad [Democrats] are.’ They want to know what you’re going to do — why should they vote for you?”

To read more, turn to thehill.com

To read the report and check out Pew’s methodology and toplines, go to pewresearch.org

“What’s our plan to create jobs and grow the economy?” said GOP pollster David Winston, who is advising the House Republican leadership on the effort. “That’s really what we have to address. We need command focus.”

To read more, turn to washingtonpost.com

Winston argues that the GOP should articulate a specific plan, but he also cautions against putting too much into it.

“One of the reason the door has opened for Republicans is that President Obama has focused on so many other things,” he added. “If you create an 87-point agenda, you’re making the same mistake.”

To read more, click to latimes.com

Kristen chats with The Washington Examiner’s JP Freire and Slate’s Chris Beam about GOP Chairman Michael Steele’s recent controversial comments on Afghanistan, as well the latest in unemployment reports and DailyKos’ lawsuit with Research 2000 over polling data.

Polls taken during the healthcare debate last year found that senior citizens over 65 were more strongly opposed to the plan than any other age group — but over time, they were joined by middle-aged baby boomers, who became increasingly negative.

“Older voters are worried that the quality of their healthcare could decline,” said David Winston, a Republican pollster. “That opens a door where they’re willing to listen to Republicans. It’s a huge opportunity.”

To read more: click to latimes.com

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner shares his economic outlook and discusses trade with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow. David Winston, of The Winston Group, and Josh Gottheimer, of Burson-Marsteller, share their reactions to Geithner’s comments.

“It dwarfs everything,” said Republican pollster David Winston. “It’s sort of like looking at a house and there’s all these things that need repair, but if the roof’s on fire, all these things are secondary. Jobs and the economy are the equivalent of the fire on the roof.”

To read the entire article, click on www.tampabay.com

“People have lost confidence in what the Democrats are doing,” said Republican strategist David Winston. “But that is not enough of a reason to vote for Republicans. Republicans still have to answer the question, ‘Why us?’ “

To read the entire article, turn to http://online.wsj.com

TRI gets a bit of a change of pace this week with some new segments. Kristen chats with Rachel Hoff from the Foreign Policy Initiative, and The Winston Group’s own Nicki Kurokawa. Topics include this week’s big stories like Kagan’s hearings, Russian Spies, the Kill Switch Bill, and Summer TV, as well as a new section, Blogger Beat.

Most folks I talk to say that in order for Rubio to have a fighting chance against Crist, he needs to bring down Crist’s favorables. Of course, that strategy might yield a slight bump in standing, but I don’t believe it is nearly enough to win. Voters already assume politicians do what they need to do to get elected. They already assume Crist has made politically motivated moves in this race. And they vote for him anyways. The problem isn’t Crist’s favorables, the problem is Rubio’s neutral brand image among independents. And the way for Rubio, Crist, or Meek (or any candidate in any race, for that matter) to build that brand is to become the leader on the issue of the economy and jobs.

To read Soltis’ entire piece, turn to pollster.com

Of course, Obama isn’t on the ballot this November. But his ratings contribute to what Winston calls the public’s “overall sense of the ability to govern.” From that perspective, Obama’s troubles are the Democrats’ troubles.

To read more about the poll numbers and Republican response to them, read the full article at washingtonexaminer.com

Kristen chats with New Media Strategies’ Matt Moon and Engage’s Mindy Finn this week, about recent staff changes in and outside of the White House, border control policies, and why soccer is irrelevant in the US.