Note: Neil Newhouse is proud to have served as the pollster for the Brown for Senate campaign and the National Republican Senatorial Committee in this race.

Massachusetts voters were sending a myriad of messages today with their election of Scott Brown.  Here’s what we heard from voters we polled over the past two weeks…

• “We’re mad as hell and not going to take it any more.”

Yes, Howard Beale’s line from the movie “Network” captures some of the frustration felt by Massachusetts voters in this election.  DC Democrats and Coakley’s campaign served pretty effectively as the object of these voters’ frustrations.

“My feeling is the Democrats have really screwed up since Barack Obama has been in office, and the sooner they lose their majority the better for our country. I think I’m just very disappointed in the direction this country is taking.” (Independent Man, Middlesex)

“To tell you the truth, I started out mainly for Coakley, but I’m fed up with the Democrats, I’m worried about this health bill they’re trying to get through, I’m just worried what it’s going to do to me.” (Independent Woman, Worcester)

• Washington isn’t listening to us.

Going hand in hand with the Beale sentiment was the frustration that Washington politicians are out-of-touch with regular people and are not listening to what they want.  Scott’s voters know very well that they are sending a wake-up call to Washington politicians.

“Democrats’ liberal agenda is killing this country’s core beliefs and values and all the issues that our forefathers fought for.  We don’t need to be baby sat.  Despite what Washington’s opinion of the common person, we are completely capable of making own decisions.” (Independent Woman, Essex)

“I like what Scott Brown stands for and I feel that the Democrats cannot run the country anymore. That too many people that don’t have jobs are going hungry. They’re not taking care of business. They’re not doing their jobs. They’re caught up in this health care thing. I’m saying they’re not taking care of the people that are unemployed.” (Independent Man, Bristol)

• It’s about much more than just health care.

While many voters’ verbatim comments focused on their sentiments regarding health care reform, national security also played a significant role.  While sometimes overlooked, the decision to try the Christmas Day underwear bomber in civilian court became a pretty contentious issue here and helped drive voters to Scott’s side.

“Specifically that Mrs Coakley is going to vote purely Democratic, and be another clone in Washington. She’s going to vote exactly how they tell her to vote. I believe more in the positions taken by Scott Brown on security and safety, even though I’m not a Republican, than the position taken by Coakley.” (Independent Man, Bristol)

“The last debate, especially the issue where she said there is no Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Probably one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard from a politician.” (Independent Man, Worcester)

“When you are talking about prosecuting these terrorists, they should be done by the military, that is a big one for me. Martha has no clue on this.” (Independent Man, Middlesex)

• Change can go both ways.

What comes around goes around.  While voters across the country voted for massive change in the 2008 election by electing President Obama, Massachusetts voters were saying they’re not pleased with the changes they’ve seen to date.  Massachusetts voters clearly want change in Washington, and rejected Martha Coakley’s “business as usual” Democratic party line candidacy.  The closer she pulled herself to MA and national Democratic leaders, the more it convinced Independent voters that she was just another party hack.

“Scott Brown ran a campaign as an underdog and he ran without support and is getting his message out, it doesn’t feel like he’s tied to anybody.  In this state it feels like there are too many connections, too many packs as they say.  So, to get someone who isn’t part of that is great, I think he’s going to represent the people for that instead of the interests of government officials.” (Independent Woman, Norfolk)

“I like his position on business and the economy and our current road. Because it directly effects us, my family. I like the fact that he’s not an insider, that, somebody that’s not jaded by the political machine. Even though everyone loved Ted Kennedy let’s face it, it was good ol’ boy club.” (Independent Woman, Worcester)

“Brown would be the forty-first elected Republican, breaking the monopoly the Democrats have in Congress. I think they’re running away with their agenda and not listening to the American people. Just that there are so many cases where, for example the tea party, people are out there expressing their opinions. I see interviews with Harry Reid, not hearing the majority.” (Independent Man, Bristol)

• Don’t take my vote for granted.

Much has been made of the passive nature of Martha Coakley’s campaign and of the contrast to Scott’s aggressive retail efforts.  That came through loud and clear in voters’ comments, as they felt that Coakley was trying to “back her way” into the Senate seat.

“I think that she’s not working as hard as she could have been in the election for one.  It was just an overall feeling that she was so sure that she was going to make it that she wasn’t working that hard.” (Independent Woman, Barnstable)

“The fact that she is not going out campaigning like Scott Brown. And she is starting to come out now. But it is way to late.  Where has she been? Scott Brown has been out there.” (Democratic Man, Middlesex)

• We don’t respond particularly well to desperate negative attacks.

Far more pervasive than voter comments regarding health care reform was voter disenchantment with Coakley’s over the top negative campaign.  There was a clear perception that Coakley tried to make up for the unpopularity of her issue positions by attacking Scott Brown.  And, the voter reaction was swift.

“The smear campaign, I can’t stand that. She isn’t God. I don’t like the fact that she’s doing a smear campaign. He has not said one negative thing about her, and she has to be scared to death. As far as I’m concerned she had my vote until she went for the smear campaign. She went for the smear campaign, and forget it. I won’t vote for her. That’s it, I’m thoroughly disgusted with her to think she can’t run a good clean campaign.” (Democratic Woman, Middlesex)

“I don’t like her negative campaigning, changed my whole opinion of her. I just don’t like the negative how she has attacked Scott Brown. She sat back when she was sure she was going to win the thing and now the polls are showing Scott is coming to the forefront and she is scared to death and now she is going to dirty politics.” (Independent Man, Plymouth)

Senior White House political adviser David Axelrod recently made the case that one of three ways the Democrats could improve their position in the 2010 mid-terms would be for job growth and an economic recovery.   Obviously an economy that is creating jobs rather than simply shedding them is more helpful to the party in power, but an economy that is growing jobs does not automatically dampen the political pain facing the party of an unpopular President.

As Neil Newhouse and Jeremy Ruch noted in this TQIA blog post:

President Obama’s job approval in the January 2-4 Gallup Daily tracking was the second lowest in the modern era for Presidents starting their second year in office.

Moreover, since Gallup first started measuring Presidential job approval, every single President has had a lower job approval on the last poll before their first mid-term election than they did at the beginning of that year.

Thus, it is much more likely than not that Obama’s approval rating will go down, instead of up.  His approval rating is not helped by the terrible ratings for his health care plan — a plan that even if passed, does not go into effect until 2014, so it is unlikely that attitudes will suddenly shift.

A historical comparison can be made with the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, and his first two years in office.  The highest unemployment was when he took the oath of office — 7.3%.  It then started dropping, slowly but consistently.  By July of 1993, unemployment was down to 6.9%, and by January of 1994 it was 6.6%.  By October of 1994 it was down to 5.8%.  Thus, unemployment fell 1.5% from the time Clinton took office to the Republican wins of 1994.

Bill Clinton and the Democrats didn’t get any credit for it.  Partly because the discontented voter was not solely focused on jobs and the economy.   Clinton’s government-first approach to everything backfired.

Pundits and Dems will make the case that because the economy is so important right now, that any improvement will accrue to the Democrats.  However, unemployment was 7.6% when Obama took over.  It is very difficult for unemployment to drop more than one percent in a year.   It is unlikely to go much below 9% by November.

Even if it does, it is not likely that Obama will receive a lot of credit from voters (although the media will be doing their damnedest).   Between his spending policies, the impact on the debt, cramming a health care bill that is wildly unpopular down the throats of voters, trying to close Gitmo, and a general willingess to run down America in his foreign speeches, the President’s challenges run much deeper than simply an unemployment rate that has skyrocketed during his time in office.

So, for Democrats hoping  that a drop in the unemployment rate back to single digits will help their fortunes in less than eleven months,  it’s fine to keep hoping, but change is coming.  Voters want a check and balance on unmitigated power in Washington.

This weekend on CNN’s State of the Union with John King, Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said she expects the economy to get better by the spring and that she thought this was a “realistic estimate.”

I sure hope she’s right about that, but unfortunately with the unemployment rate stuck at 10{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222} and 85,000 more jobs lost in December, things don’t look that great. Additionally, much of what we know – at least from a consumer and voter perspective – would indicate things are going to be tough for quite some time.

Looking at previous recessions we know historically that once the Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index falls below 65 that it takes a very long time to recover and get back up above the healthy rating of 85 – usually somewhere in the region of two to four years. In this recession, it’s been just over 20 months since the Index slipped below 65, and December’s rating was still well below 85.

On top of this, when you consider other measures of public sentiment, it is quickly apparent that even if economists declare the recession over in the spring (although didn’t they already do that at the end of the summer last year?), the public won’t necessarily agree. Consider some of the data:

• Just 17{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222} of the nation considers the state of the national economy to be “very” or “fairly” good, while 82{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222} say it is “fairly” or “very” bad.*
• Although more people (31{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222}) say the economy is getting better, rather than worse (19{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222}), almost half of the country (49{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222}) believes it is staying the same.*
• Throughout 2009, the majority of Americans told us they think we still have a ways to go before the country’s economic conditions hit the bottom. And, in October last year more than six-in-ten (63{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222}) Americans said we have a ways to go before we hit bottom on unemployment.**

So, while we all want the economy to recover and the unemployment rate to drop, it may be more realistic to recognize this is going to take a while. Most likely, the economy will not have recovered by the spring and it will continue to be the top issue for voters this year.

Republican candidates running for office in 2010 should keep this in mind and study the success of the 2009 gubernatorial campaigns in New Jersey and Virginia. Governors-elect Christie (NJ) and McDonnell (VA) both took the time to connect with voters on the economy, to understand voters’ hardships, and to offer commonsense solutions to help get each state’s economy back on track.

This post was written by Neil Newhouse and Jeremy Ruch

President Obama’s job approval in the January 2-4 Gallup Daily tracking was the second lowest in the modern era for Presidents starting their second year in office.  Obama opened the new year with a 50{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222}-44{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222} job approval rating which was marginally higher than President Reagan’s 49{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222}-40{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222} rating at the start of 1982, but lower than the ratings held by both President Carter and President Clinton at the start of their second years.

Obama’s humdrum approval rating is undoubtedly causing anxiety and sleepless nights in the White House and in Democratic Party circles.  An underwhelming approval rating not only diminishes support for Obama’s legislative agenda (see Reform, Health Care), it also has implications for House Democrats’ electoral fortunes.  As Glen Bolger detailed in his post last week, a President’s job approval has a significant effect on his party’s gains or losses in the mid-term House elections.  At 50{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222}, Obama’s approval rating sits at the tipping point at which incumbent party losses in the House go from bad to worse.

Moreover, since Gallup first started measuring Presidential job approval, every single President has had a lower job approval on the last poll before their first mid-term election than they did at the beginning of that year.*

Let’s look at the history:

✓    Jimmy Carter opened 1978 with a 55{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222} job approval that eroded to the 40s by October.  Democrats lost 15 House seats in the mid-term elections.

✓    Ronald Reagan’s 49{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222} job approval in January 1982 slipped to 43{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222} in October.  Republicans went on to lose 26 seats.

✓    Bill Clinton started 1994 with a 54{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222} approval rating before sliding to 46{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222} in October.  The Democrats’ loss of 52 seats has been well documented.

Of course, mid-term House losses do not seal a President’s fate.  While Carter’s mid-term losses were followed by a failed re-election bid in 1980, both Reagan and Clinton sustained heavy mid-term losses only to rebound and easily win a second term.  For Obama, it’s far too early to make predictions for 2012.  However, the historical downward trajectory of a President’s job approval does not bode well for his legislative agenda or for Democrats’ chances in the 2010 mid-term elections.

*Job Approval numbers for President Franklin D. Roosevelt are only available dating back to 1937, his fifth year in office.  President Lyndon Johnson’s first mid-term election was 1966, his fourth calendar year in office.  President Ford’s first mid-term election was 1974, his first year.