Wednesday, October 23, 2024

Poll: Democrats’ advantage in midterm election support is shrinking

April 17, 2018 by  
Filed under Choosing Lingerie

Comments Off

Democrats hold an advantage ahead of the midterm elections, but a Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that edge has narrowed since January, a signal to party leaders and strategists that they could be premature in anticipating a huge wave of victories in November.

The poll finds that the gap between support for Democratic vs. Republican House candidates has dropped by more than half since the beginning of the year. At the same time, there has been a slight increase in President Trump’s approval rating, although it remains low. Measures of partisan enthusiasm paint a more mixed picture of the electorate in comparison with signs of Democratic intensity displayed in many recent special elections.

One potentially new factor in the mix of midterm issues is gun policy, which has emerged as a major voter consideration two months after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. More than 4 in 10 registered voters say it is extremely important that ­candidates share their views on gun issues. Fewer voters say it is critical that candidates share their views on Trump or House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), leaders who are most likely to be targets in partisan messaging this fall.

With the Republicans’ House majority at risk, 47 percent of registered voters say they prefer the Democratic candidate in their district, while 43 percent favor the Republican. That four-point margin compares with a 12-point advantage Democrats held in January. Among a broader group of voting-age adults, the Democrats’ margin is 10 points, 50 percent to 40 percent.

Republicans owe part of their improved standing to Trump’s thawing job ratings. The Post-ABC poll finds that 40 percent approve of the president, up slightly from 36 percent in January to his highest level of support since last April. Still, Trump continues to face majority disapproval at 56 percent, higher than any other president at this stage since the dawn of modern polling, an indication that he remains a significant liability for Republicans on ballots in November.

The survey shows the GOP making a more pronounced shift among white voters, who now prefer Republicans by a 14-point margin over Democrats, up from five points in January. Republicans lead by 60 percent to 31 percent among white voters without college degrees, slightly larger than an 18-point GOP advantage three months ago.

The situation in the districts where control of the House is likely to be decided is slightly more favorable for Democrats. The Cook Political Report, which produces nonpartisan analysis, lists 56 of the 435 congressional districts as competitive — 51 of them in Republican hands to just five held by Democrats.

In competitive districts excluding Pennsylvania, where new boundaries were drawn this year, Democrats have an edge of 50 percent to 43 percent when voters are asked which party’s candidates they would favor if the election in their district were held today. Democrats need a net gain of 23 seats to capture the majority in the House.

Special elections and gubernatorial races over the past year have shown that Democrats are benefiting from a surge in voter enthusiasm, including a narrow victory in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District in March, which Trump won by nearly 20 points in 2016.

The Post-ABC poll finds parity in stated voting intentions. Among registered voters, 68 percent of both Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning registered voters say they are certain they will vote. This contrasts with Post-ABC polling ahead of the 2010 and 2014 midterm cycles, when Republicans averaged a double-digit advantage in intentions to vote. Democrats suffered major losses in both years.

Other public polls have found a narrowing in Democrats’ midterm advantage, although it has been less sharp than in the Post-ABC poll.

An average of public polls compiled by The Post finds Democrats’ lead on this metric stood at eight points in January and 11 points in February but six points in polls over the past 30 days, similar to the Post-ABC poll’s four-point margin. Analysts expect Democrats to need a six- to eight-point lead in “generic-
ballot polls” to win a majority of congressional districts.

The new survey points to opportunities and challenges for both parties in coming months.

Some core constituencies of each party expressed tepid interest in turning out to vote in an off-year election, when many eligible voters typically stay home. Although 58 percent of all adults say they are sure they will vote this year, that falls to fewer than 4 in 10 among adults younger than 30. Young voters have heavily favored Democrats in recent elections. Certainty to vote dips to 54 percent among African Americans and 39 percent among Hispanics. Those compare with 64 percent among whites, a majority of whom favor Republicans.

At the same time, white voters with college degrees, a competitive voting bloc, are 14 points more likely to say they are certain to vote than whites with some college or less, a group that has increasingly favored Republicans and voted for Trump at record levels.

Sixty-one percent of men and 56 percent of women say they are certain to vote, with 55 percent of female registered voters saying they favor a Democratic candidate and 50 percent of men backing a Republican. Democrats are counting on strong turnout among women to help their candidates in November.

The renewed gun-control debate is a wild card in the midterm election, with lawmakers facing pressure from students nationwide to pass new laws. Several polls have shown heightened support for restrictions aimed at curbing gun violence following February’s massacre in Parkland.

Although public activism has put pressure on Republicans and the National Rifle Association, the Post-ABC poll suggests that neither party holds an advantage in support among the 42 percent of voters who say it’s “extremely important” that a congressional candidate share their views on the issue. Within this group, three-quarters of voters who prioritize enacting new gun laws support Democrats for Congress, while 8 in 10 of those who give protecting gun rights greater significance support Republicans. As a whole, the group splits nearly evenly, with 47 percent supporting Democrats and 46 percent backing Republicans.

A smaller group, 31 percent, say it is “extremely important” for congressional candidates to share their views about Trump, although more than half say this will be at least “very important.” Those who say it is extremely important favor Democrats over Republicans by 11 points, 54 percent to 43 percent.

Many Republicans are trying to make Democratic leader Pelosi a focus of their campaigns. In the poll, 17 percent of voters say a candidate’s views on Pelosi will be extremely important in their vote, and Republicans lead Democrats by 16 points among this group in the generic congressional ballot.

Pelosi has a negative image, with 32 percent of Americans holding a favorable view of her, and 44 percent unfavorable. But nearly one-quarter have no opinion of the former House speaker, who could regain the gavel if Democrats flip the House. Among Republicans, she is well-known and widely disliked, with 74 percent holding unfavorable views of her, 63 percent strongly.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted April 8-11 among a random national sample of 1,002 adults reached on cellphones and landline telephones. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; the error margin is four points among the sample of 865 registered voters.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

EPA internal watchdog finds Pruitt’s top aide approved controversial raises

April 17, 2018 by  
Filed under Choosing Lingerie

Comments Off

A new report from the Environmental Protection Agency’s internal watchdog found that it was Administrator Scott Pruitt’s chief of staff who signed off on raises for at least two of the agency chief’s long-time aides under a little-known provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

According to the EPA’s inspector general, Pruitt’s Chief of Staff, Ryan Jackson, directly oversaw and approved the pay raises for Sarah Greenwalt, Millan Hupp and Millan Hupp’s sister, Sydney Hupp. Documents released as part of their interim report show that Jackson signed his name in a box reserved for the administrator’s signature, with a note to the side that says, “for Scott Pruitt.”

Andrew Harnik/AP
Scott PruittEnvironmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt speaks at a news conference at the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, April 3, 2018.

ABC News previously reported that two sources confirmed Pruitt pushed for the raises of two staffers but has not confirmed that the amounts were paid to these employees. The report lists those figures as being paid to “employee A” and “employee B”.

The Atlantic first reported that both staffers were given significant raises that were supposed to take effect this month and added that Pruitt personally approved the raises after the White House officials denied the request.

The Atlantic and The Washington Post reported that a $56,765 raise was approved for Greenwalt, which would have brought her salary to more than $164,000, and that a $28,130 raise was approved for Millan Hupp, which would have brought her salary to more than $114,000.

In an interview that aired on Fox News earlier this month, Pruitt said he didn’t know anything about the raises and that he has taken action to reverse the decision.

“My staff did and I found out about that yesterday and I changed it. That PPO process should have been respected and I issued a statement yesterday walking back those pay raises,” he told the reporter.

The interim report released Monday was a “management alert,” which the inspector general’s office issues when it finds information during an audit that needs to be immediately brought to the attention of management at the agency.
In a statement to ABC News on Monday, the EPA did not directly address the inspector general’s alert, but clarified its position on the EPA’s hiring process and reiterated its commitment to cooperating with the inspector general.

“Salary determinations for appointees are made by EPA’s chief of staff, White House liaison, and career human resources officials,” EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said. “Offices within the Agency have already been responsive to the Inspector General’s inquiries concerning administratively determined positions and will continue to provide information for any future inquiries.”

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images, FILE
The headquarters of the United States Environmental Protection Agency which is now called the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building is seen, July 17, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Salaries of the vast majority of federal government employees are dictated by a strict wage guideline called the General Schedule pay system, which determines compensations based on various factors including education level, years of service and location.

Some federal employees, however, are hired under other pay categories that are established and adjusted by unique statutes of each agency.

In the EPA’s case, according to information on the Office of Personnel Management website, the Safe Drinking Water Act establishes the administrator’s authority to appoint up to 30 employees and set their salaries up to a certain level to assist with the agency’s mission to protect public health and clean water.

In early 2017, as the Trump administration got underway, Pruitt brought on 10 staff members with his hiring authority established by the Safe Drinking Water Act. Many of them were his long-time aides from Oklahoma, including Greenwalt and Millan and Sydney Hupp.

A document obtained by American Oversight lists additional appointees that were hired by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act rule as “administratively determined” positions. That document counts eight additional hires, including senior advisors and communications staff for the administrator.

American Oversight is a government watchdog group that has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for information on appointed officials in multiple agencies. The executive director and other members of the group worked for federal agencies during the Obama administration.

Two of those employees have since left the agency.

In addition to concerns about how much these appointees are being paid, watchdog reports from the EPA’s inspector general and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have flagged that these employees do not have to follow the same ethics procedures as other appointees. Political appointees typically have to declare financial conflicts of interest through the Office of Government Ethics.

Sens. Tom Carper. D-Delaware, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., have requested information on EPA appointees under the Safe Drinking Water Act multiple times, citing concern that Pruitt was appointing lobbyists to jobs at EPA who then didn’t have to disclose conflicts of interest.

At the beginning of Pruitt’s time at EPA, the senators asked the EPA for information about the nominees but said the agency didn’t respond to their requests. They wrote the GAO in August asking for an investigation into these hires. The EPA inspector general began an inquiry in January. A GAO spokesman said their investigation is on hold until the IG report is complete.

In early April, the senators sent another letter to the inspector general asking them to expand that investigation to include The Atlantic’s report about Pruitt having personally granted the raises using the Safe Drinking Water Act provision, even after the White House office that usually handles such matters rejected the raises.

The Senators wrote that the Act only gives the EPA administrator the ability to hire these employees and determine their salaries.

“Pruitt’s interview with Fox News raises several troubling questions. If Pruitt’s statements to Fox News were accurate, then one or more EPA officials other than the Administrator appointed and fixed the compensation of these individuals absent direction from or knowledge of the Administrator,” they wrote in the letter. “This could indicate a serious breakdown of internal controls on the appropriate use of this authority. If Pruitt’s statements were false, then the SDWA hiring authority may have been intentionally abused under the direction of the Administrator to award large raises to favored aides.”

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS