RUSH: Did you notice not one -- this is very telling, ladies and gentlemen -- not one of the three major television news networks in the evening news broadcast mentioned the David Jolly victory in Florida yesterday, not one of them. This is relevant because a sizable portion of the population gets its news from the nightly news. Now, they are aging. They largely are seasoned citizens. There's some people to whom what they watch at 6:30 or seven o'clock at night is the first news of the day they see. It's a dwindling number, to be sure. You can tell the audience by looking at the advertising in the evening newscasts. But still, not one of the networks mentioned the story.
I have to tell you, if the Democrats had won that seat, that would be all they'd be talking about, and they would have led with that story. But there wasn't a peep about it on any of the three network evening newscasts or on any of the morning shows today, either. Not a peep. Now, if you look elsewhere in the Drive-By Media -- and we will today -- they are deeply concerned, and there is an NBC News/Washington Post poll that really has the Democrat Party and the Drive-Bys in a deep tizzy.
RUSH: Chris Cillizza has a piece in the Washington Post today. He has seen the data in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. He has written about it. He is very, very concerned about three data points in this poll. His headline: "Three Numbers in the NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll That Should Worry the Democrats." Here it is, in a nutshell, and I'll go through it in greater detail in mere moments. Obama's approval rating in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll is 41%.
By itself, that is bad. That is the lowest Obama has ever been in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. By itself, it's bad. (As far as I'm concerned, when it hits 35%, let me know.) But 41%, they're worried -- they're deeply worried -- and here's why. In the big Republican sweep in 1994, Bill Clinton's approval number was 45%. Obama's is worse than that. Cillizza, extrapolating, said (summarized):
"My gosh, if the Republicans took over the House for the first time in 40 years when the Democrat president was at 45%, what's gonna happen when the president, a sitting Democrat president is at 41%?" The last time that it happened, in 2010, when the Republicans won 63 seats, Obama was at 45% approval in the last Gallup poll before the election. Clinton was at 46%. So Obama is way below his own worst number in 2010 and Clinton in 1994. That 41% job approval has them really spooked, and there are a couple other things, too, in this.
RUSH: Okay, so three data points Chris Cillizza finds horrifying in the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. Again, 41% is Obama's approval number, the lowest he has been in the history of the poll, and it's not a blip. It's been trending that way. It's not an outlier. Obama has been at 43%, then 44%, then back to 43%, then at 42%, and now down to an all-time low of 41%. And here's why it matters. When Democrats lost control of the House 1994, Clinton's approval rating was 46%.
In the last Gallup poll before the election of 2010, where the Republicans won 63 seats... Nobody saw that coming inside the Beltway. That's one of those sweet memories of the 2010 midterms is that neither party's establishment saw it coming. The Republicans, they weren't even running on anything. They were still in shellshock, having the first black president and not knowing how to deal with it. So they just shut up.
They weren't offering anything. The Tea Party came to life and provided an alternative for people that were dissatisfied. I mean, they were just fed up at the debt, and Obamacare had them livid and scared. So they showed up and they voted against the Democrats everywhere, and ended up winning 63 seats. And Obama, during the last Gallup poll prior to that election, was at 45%.
So Cillizza is saying here, if Clinton's at 46%, and the Republicans win the House -- and if Obama is at 45%, and Republicans win 63 seats -- what in the heck is gonna happen with Obama at 41%, if it stays there? There are noted, inside-the-Beltway commentators who are privately already conceding the Senate to Republicans. Now, some of them are admittedly fatalist, but it is already being whispered inside the Beltway.
That could be trickery, as you know, but it's not being shouted; it's being whispered. The second number of the three in this poll that worries Cillizza is 44. "That's the percentage of respondents who said that a 'congressperson's position on national issues' would be more important in deciding their votes than the 'congressperson's performance in taking care of problems in your district.'"
This is the old nationalizing of elections, and this is what Newt and the boys did by design in 1994. It happened automatically in 2010, but it was a strategy in '94. The David Jolly victory in Florida 13 on Tuesday is a classic example. That race was nationalized. People voted not on who was gonna be better at building the old folks' home or filling potholes or any of that stuff. That election was decided on Obamacare. Oh, and do you know...?
Folks, let me add one thing. I neglected to point out one thing yesterday about that race. We mentioned the global warming angle, how that didn't work for the Democrat. We mentioned the Obamacare angle, how that hurt the Democrat. There was another angle. Remember, this is the woman, Alex Sink, who said we have to open the borders, have to have amnesty so that we can hire landscapers and maids for our homes over on the beach. Remember that?
That's the woman who said in a debate (summarized), "The reason we need amnesty is so that our wealthy will be able to stock their household staffs." So amnesty was on the ballot as well. It was a campaign issue, and it lost. So the Democrats, everything they want to wrap their arms around (and in the case of immigration, Republicans, too) lost. So that's another interesting fact about how that race was totally ignored on all three nightly network newscasts last night. That race was not even mentioned.
You know that if that Democrat lady had won it, they would have led each of those newscasts with it. The final number is 33. "One in three registered voters in the NBC-WSJ poll said that their vote for Congress this fall will be intended to signal opposition to President Obama. Compare that to the 24% who said their vote would be a way to show support for Obama and you have the enthusiasm gap between the two party bases that likely sunk (Alex) Sink on Tuesday."
So Sink was sunk by the enthusiasm gap. You got 33% in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that said they're gonna show up expressly to vote against Obama; 24% are gonna show up to vote for him. You put these three numbers together, and there is panic in River City. And this, of course, will dictate policy and campaign strategy from now until November, 'cause we can't have this, folks.
The news media are gonna have to double up their efforts in rallying around their president. Here's how Cillizza ends this: "The danger for Obama -- and his party -- is if his current numbers continue to tumble into a place where George W. Bush found himself in 2006," because then it is going to be a bloodbath. So the media now has to really double their efforts, triple their efforts, and rally around their president in order to save him and the party.
RUSH: Here's the quote that I'm sure helped sink Alex Sink, helped sink her. She said, "Immigration reform is important in our country. We have a lot of employers over on the beaches that rely upon workers -- and especially in this high-growth environment, where are you going to get people to work to clean out hotel rooms or do our landscaping?
"And we don't need to put those employers in a position of hiring undocumented and illegal workers." We need to legalize landscapers and hotel workers and latrine scrubbers. So she introduced the notion of amnesty, and she happened to be honest about why some people want it, and she lost. She lost on virtually every issue, folks -- particularly global warming -- that the Democrats, hold dear.