Free Markets, Free People

Polling

1 3 4 5 6 7 20

A couple of polls

With the shooting in Aurora (lived there as a kid), CO, the usual suspects are calling for the usual remedy – stricter gun control.

How does the American public feel about such measures?  Rasmussen says that in the wake of the mass shooting in CO, the percentages for and against stricter gun control remain pretty much the same, with an overwhelming majority saying stricter control isn’t a solution.

So, to the politics of the incident – how does one make that message, “we need stricter gun control”, a positive in this campaign (or any campaign?)?  They don’t try if they’re smart.

Then there’s another indicator poll.  What this one points out, in my opinion, is the fact that if Romney can keep the debate focused on the economy and off the extraneous nonsense the Obama campaign will try to distract the voting public with, he stands a good chance of winning.

Despite concerted Democratic attacks on his business record, Republican challenger Mitt Romney scores a significant advantage over President Obama when it comes to managing the economy, reducing the federal budget deficit and creating jobs, a national USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney’s background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation’s economic problems over the next four years.

The findings raise questions about Obama’s strategy of targeting Bain’s record in outsourcing jobs and hammering Romney for refusing to commit to releasing more than two years of his tax returns. Instead, Americans seem focused on the economy, where disappointment with the fragile recovery and the 8.2% unemployment rate are costing the president.

So, with questions raised about the Obama strategy, what is a incumbent with a bad economic record he doesn’t at all want to visit if he can help it do if his current attacks aren’t having an effect?  Throw something else extraneous to the real problem he doesn’t want to talk about out there and see if it sticks to the wall.  And count on the media to pitch in and try to help it stick.

That’s how it has worked so far.

I see no reason he’ll alter his tactics.

That said, clearly if Romney can continue to stay on message and get that message out there he has a majority constituency who are with him. 

The poll goes on to say that Obama holds a “likeability” advantage over Romney.  Yeah, well, unsaid is what 4 years of a high “likeability” index have gotten us.  And, as should be clear, most voters don’t like it.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Poll: The economy belongs to Obama and it’s not good

Apparently the voters (likely voters) believe, according to this poll, that the economy is bad and, despite all his finger pointing to the contrary, it’s Obama’s fault:

Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.

It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.

That’s a pretty significant split between those blamed, with GW Bush down to a low of 18%.  And note the reason cited: bad policy.

This is another of those indicator polls.  I point them out because they are a temperature check for the moment.  But what this particular poll indicates is all of the finger pointing, blame shifting and distraction aren’t working.  Voters, and again, I want to emphasize these are likely voters, aren’t or haven’t bought into that nonsense.

If indeed these likely voters actually believe the economy to be suffering from bad policy choices by Obama, it means his chance of winning, with 66% believing he’s the reason we’re suffering economically, are not good.

Again, an indicator – one in a long list of indicators to be considered with all the others. 

This one, like many of the others, aren’t at all favorable for the incumbent President.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

NYT says Obama distraction campaign may not be working

Much to the Obama campaign and the Time’s chagrin I would suppose.  You see, the economics and politics of unemployment are personal, and most of those who find themselves in that position don’t care about Bain Capital or Romney’s tax returns.  That’s essentially the message the most recent NYT/CBS News poll reported:

Despite months of negative advertising from Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies seeking to further define Mr. Romney as out of touch with the middle class and representative of wealthy interests, the poll shows little evidence of any substantial nationwide shift in attitudes about Mr. Romney.

Personal situations trump political rhetoric, especially when the political rhetoric has no bearing on that personal situation.  Apparently, unlike the media, most of the public still realize what is important.  They aren’t caught up in the politics.  They want answers to the hard questions … the questions the Obama campaign would just as soon ignore.

Thus the distraction game.

But, apparently, that game isn’t working.

The new poll shows that the race remains essentially tied, notwithstanding all of the Washington chatter suggesting that Mr. Romney’s campaign has seemed off-kilter amid attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital and his unwillingness to release more of his tax returns. Forty-five percent say they would vote for Mr. Romney if the election were held now and 43 percent say they would vote for Mr. Obama.

When undecided voters who lean toward a particular candidate are included, Mr. Romney has 47 percent to Mr. Obama’s 46 percent.

Now that’s pretty much dead even with the challenger, despite all the negative ads and stories, having the slight edge.

Frankly, given history, it shouldn’t be this close at this point.  Even Jimmy Carter had a lead at this point in his re-election campaign.

The poll is another among many indicators that the Obama presidency is in trouble.  Take it for no more than that.  It’s a temperature check.  A snapshot. 

However, when put together with all the other temperature checks, you begin to see a campaign that isn’t at all healthy.

I can’t say I’m shedding too many tears over that.   And it also says that the voters are, at least to this point, able to push aside the distractions, focus on the key issues and hold a president accountable that desperately seeks someone (or something) to blame his failure on or an issue to distract from that failure.

Not working.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Poll: Majority feel Obama changed country for the worse

I continue to hear the left bravely or blindly asserting that Obama’s fine and will pull off re-election with relative ease.  I even hear that on the right from some.

My political gut says no.  It’ll be close.  No one is really that enamored with Mitt Romney.  However, in the end, it will be Romney.

Why do I speak with such apparent certainty?  Well, as I’ve mentioned in the past, there are certain types of polls I keep an eye on.  They could be characterized as “temperature” polls I guess as in taking the temperature of the nation.  Direction of the country is one I like to watch.  Here’s another for example:

Two-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.

A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.

The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks reelection this fall. 

Two points.  One the poll is of “likely voters” which is a much stronger and accurate demographic than “registered  voters”.  Secondly, the 35% of satisfied likely voters pretty much mirrors the percentage of Democrats in the US.  What that says to me is independents are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the president.

That’s not good news for the Obama campaign.

Then there is enthusiasm, something we talk about because it is an intangible that is critical to any election.  It is critical to any GOTV effort.  Those that are more enthusiastic about the election for whatever reason (love their candidate, don’t like the other candidate, etc.) are more likely to make the effort to vote and be receptive to a GOTV effort.

That too seems to be running against Obama:

Independent of voter opinions about how the country has changed, The Hill Poll found an overwhelming majority of voters — 89 percent — view the choice between Obama and Romney as important in terms of the future impact on the country.

Almost half (47 percent) say they are paying more attention to this year’s election than the 2008 vote. Republicans are generally paying more attention than Democrats — 56 percent to 44 percent — to the 2012 campaign compared to 2008.

The Hill, which conducted the poll, wants you to believe that independents, which they also identify as “centrists”, are pretty evenly split over the two candidates.  But their 56/35 finding doesn’t support that assertion. 

People are not happy with the current situation in the country (with good reason) and for the most part think 4 years is enough time to change it if a president is capable of doing so.  It hasn’t happened.  In fact, for at least 14.9% of the working population it has gotten worse (as reflected in the U6 unemployment/underemployment number).

That’s a huge number. 

What Obama doesn’t have going for him this time is a ground swell of naiveté that bought into the nebulous “hope and change” mantra.  He most likely won’t have the youth turnout he had (enthusiasm down badly).  He very likely won’t have the squishy Republican vote (the Peggy Noonan vote) he had last time.  The “white guilt” vote has, for the most part, been assuaged.  A black president was elected and got his chance.  Add those in with his loss of the independent or swing voters, and the margins become very thin. 

Obviously the swing states, as usual, will determine the outcome.  But even in the swing states, the margins are razor thin (with Romney leading in many), and that, again, is not a good sign for an incumbent four months out.

This particular temperature check seems to bolster the political gut feeling (a collection of such temperature checks and other rumblings here and there) that this is an incumbent in deep trouble and probably doesn’t yet know the extent of it.

When emphasis is turned on to his record, my guess is the numbers get worse … for him.

Stay tuned.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

And then there are the irrelevant polls, like this one from Gallup

Other than political fodder, of what significance is this poll?

Americans continue to place more blame for the nation’s economic problems on George W. Bush than on Barack Obama, even though Bush left office more than three years ago. The relative economic blame given to Bush versus Obama today is virtually the same as it was last September.

Uh, so what? 

Is Bush running for President?

When people enter the voting booth few if any are going to vote based on who they blame for the economic downturn.

Instead they’re much more likely to vote for the candidate they think can best turn it around. 

One will have 3+ year record of failure to this point.

The election isn’t about who is to blame.  It is about who the voters think can fix it.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

A Primer on polling

As I’ve mentioned any number of times, you have to be careful about what polls you consider as worthy of believing and what polls are likely not particularly accurate.  Jay Cost has a great article about that with the added point that the media doesn’t understand what he tells you and so doesn’t understand the races in the various states.

He points to this from the Hill as an example:

President Obama is retaining his commanding lead over Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania, topping the Republican presidential nominee by 12 points in a poll released Wednesday by Franklin & Marshall College. Obama would win the favor of 48 percent of Keystone State voters, versus just 36 percent for Romney, according to the poll.

First:

1. The president is under 50 percent in most swing state polling averages. It’s not an ironclad rule that Obama cannot rise in the polls, but common sense suggests that it will be tough. He’s been the president for three years – if you’re not inclined to vote for him now, what will five months of a campaign do?

That’s an important point – if you’re the incumbent and polling under 50%, you’re in trouble regardless of the type voter the poll uses.  Also note that the Romney candidacy isn’t even official yet.  He would likely see a rise in preference once he is officially the GOP candidate.

Another point I’ll expand on later – favorability.  Cost says this:

It’s worth noting as well that most of these polls show the president getting roughly his job approval, which is all we should expect him to receive in the general election (maybe a little less). And his job approval rating has consistently been under 50 percent for two-and-a-half years.

Not good.  Not insurmountable, but certainly not an indicator of a strong candidate.  More on favorability later.

2. Most polls are of registered voters. This matters because the actual electorate will only be a subset of registered voters, and will probably be more inclined to vote for the GOP. So, these polls probably overstate Obama’s “lead,” such as it is.

With a state like Pennsylvania, using registered voters, you most likely get an oversampling of Democrats.  Which side is most likely to be motivated this time?  The GOP.  So the number quoted in the Hill story is probably considerably lower than claimed (remember Wisconsin?  A state carried by 14 points in 2008 is now showing 7 points).

3. There is no “blue wall.” This is a common point pundits will make – the list of states that have not voted Republican since 1988 amounts to a “blue wall” for the president. Nonsense. It’s better to say that these states have Democratic tilts, some of them pretty minimal.

We’ve seen evidence of that in landslide elections.  There’s no “red wall” either.  It’s all about tilts.  Some states tilt more than others but all states, at some point, are in play.  Think preference cascade.

Says Cost:

The states with a Republican tilt of at least 1 point total up to 253 electoral votes, based on the 2008 results. The states with a Democratic tilt of at least 1 percent total up to 257 electoral votes.

In other words, it’s a wash.

And this is key:

4. The “horse race” metaphor has its limits. Take this from the guy who used to write the Horse Race Blog: The concept of a horse race does not capture the idea of voter psychology very well at this point. Roughly 85 percent or so of the electorate is locked in – though they may not be admitting it to pollsters – while the final 15 percent has barely started the decision-making process. So, the idea that Obama has a “lead” in the polls is really a non sequitur. The gettable voters are not yet engaged, so there really is no race going on at the moment

The fight is for the 15% and they’re not even really paying attention yet.  My guess is the 15% probably have a preference, but can be swayed.  But for the most part, the majority of the electorate is already engaged (and again, this is one reason WI has national implications).

Finally, favorability.  Obama supporters like to point to his favorability rating vs. Romney.  That’s pretty much useless as Morris Fiorna explains:

Over all, in the 13 elections between 1952 and 2000, Republican candidates won four of the six in which they had higher personal ratings than the Democrats, while Democratic candidates lost four of the seven elections in which they had higher ratings than the Republicans. Not much evidence of a big likability effect here. In most elections, however, the electorate did not give a large personal edge to either candidate. In four elections they did.

So it is a very mixed bag concerning favorability or likeability.  The most pertinent recent example:

Jimmy Carter’s 1980 job approval was flirting with lows established by Harry S. Truman, Nixon and later, George W. Bush, but the electorate rated Carter’s personal qualities as the highest of the Democratic candidates between 1952 and 2000. The same electorate rated Ronald Reagan as the lowest of the Republican candidates. The Ronald Reagan of October 1980 was not the Reagan of “morning again in America” in 1984, let alone the beloved focus of national mourning in 2004. Many Americans saw the 1980 Reagan as uninformed, reckless, and given to gaffes and wild claims. But despite their misgivings about Reagan, and their view that Carter was a peach of a guy personally, voters opted against four more years of Carter.

Fiorna sums it up this way:

“Voters didn’t like my personality” is a loser’s excuse.

As the campaigns progress, we’re likely to hear how Obama’s favorability rating is higher than Romney’s and that such a rating is “significant”.  Don’t buy into that.  It is likely not that significant at all. 

In summary, if the candidate is under 50% in a state in which registered voters are polled, he’s not as strong (or weak) as the polling might indicate.  If the poll is of registered voters, take it with a grain of salt.  All states are in play and the fight is for the uncommitted 15%.

Favorability?  Disregard.  It’s about job performance. (That said, here’s POLITICO trying to make something of Obama’s favorability rating).

Hopefully this will help you navigate the worth of the umpteen polls you’ll have thrown your way in the next few months.  You should be able to quickly get their measure and then just as quickly figure out if the media has any idea of what it is talking about. 

Most likely you’ll find they don’t.  But then, that shouldn’t particularly surprise you, should it?

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Preference cascade: How solid are Obama’s favorability numbers?

I wonder about the validity of these sorts of numbers:

While rising 14 points since February, Romney still trails the president, who currently has a 56% favorable rating, with 42% saying they hold an unfavorable opinion of Obama. The president’s favorable and unfavorable ratings are unchanged from CNN polls in March and April.

“The biggest gap between Obama and Romney’s favorable ratings is among younger Americans. More than two-thirds of those under 30 have a favorable view of Obama, compared to only four-in-ten who feel that way about Romney. Romney is much stronger among senior citizens, but the gap is not nearly as big," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Romney may have a small advantage among independent voters, but that is offset by his lower favorable rating among Republicans than Obama has among Democrats."

A couple of things – how strong, really, is Obama’s favorable ratings among a demographic scared to death of being called a racist if they happen to have an unfavorable view of our first black president?  That’s a legitimate question.

Old folks, for the most part, don’t give a damn about that and may more closely mirror the real feelings out in fly over land.

The reason I say that is Obama’s “favorable ratings” have continued to stay high while his job performance numbers have continued to fall.  That seems somewhat unlikely.  Usually the two show some movement in the same direction even if one is higher than the other.

Romney is going to grow on Republicans if he continues to attack (i.e. not be the designated place holder for the GOP and refuse to do what is necessary to win as did John McCain), keep the campaign focused on the real issues of the campaign (and Obama’s record) and not fall for the distractions that are sure to be tossed out to the media every week by the Obama campaign.  Republicans are eager for someone, anyone, who will carry the political battle to the Democrats.

John Hayward talks about the Glenn Reynolds “preference cascade”, a phenomenon Reynolds notes while talking about the collapse of totalitarian regimes.   Hayward describes it here:

A large population can be dominated by a small group only by persuading all dissenters that they stand alone.  Most of their fellow citizens are portrayed as loyal to the regime, and everyone around the dissident is a potential informer.  A huge dissident population can therefore be suppressed, by making them believe they’re all lonely voices in the wilderness… until the day they begin realizing they are not alone, and most people don’t support the regime.  The process by which dissent becomes seen as commonplace, and eventually overwhelming, is the preference cascade.

This analysis doesn’t have to be confined to the study of repressive, dictatorial regimes, or even politics.  Consider the phenomenon of celebrity without merit – that is, people who are famous for being famous.  Their popularity tends to evaporate in a preference cascade eventually, as people in the audience begin wondering if anyone else is tired of hearing about the ersatz “celebrity,” and soon discover that everyone is.

He then applies it to the politics of this race:

That’s what began happening over the past couple of weeks: a large number of people discovered it’s okay to strongly disapprove of Barack Obama.  His popularity has always been buttressed by the conviction – very aggressively pushed by his supporters – disapproval of his personal or official conduct is immoral. You’re presumptively “racist” if you disagree with him

That’s what began happening over the past couple of weeks: a large number of people discovered it’s okay to strongly disapprove of Barack Obama.  His popularity has always been buttressed by the conviction – very aggressively pushed by his supporters – that disapproval of his personal or official conduct is immoral.  You’re presumptively “racist” if you disagree with him, or at least a greedy tool of the Evil Rich, or a “Tea Party extremist.”

A negative mirror image of this narrative was installed around Mitt Romney, who is supposedly a fat-cat extremist (and, thanks to the insidious War On Mormons, a religious nut) who nobody likes… even though large numbers of people in many different states voted for him in the primaries.  Of course he has his critics, and I’m not seeking to dismiss the intensity or sincerity of that criticism… but the idea was to make Romney supporters feel isolated going into the general election, particularly the people who don’t really get involved in primary elections.

Both of those convergent narratives began crumbling this week: Obama is deeply vulnerable, and his campaign has no real answer to criticism of his record – they’ve even tried floating an outright fraud, the now-infamous Rex Nutting charts that presented Obama as some kind of fiscal hawk.  (Stop laughing – major media figures took this garbage seriously for a couple of days, and Team Obama did push it.)  Major Democrats, beginning with Newark mayor Cory Booker, expressed criticism of the Obama campaign… and the Left reacted with shrieking hysteria and vows of personal destruction for the “traitors.”

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney effectively presented both substantive criticism of Obama, and a positive agenda.  Attacks on his business record that were supposed to destroy him through class-warfare tactics failed to draw blood.  The idea that he can win became widely accepted.  That doesn’t mean he won the 2012 argument… but unlike Barack Obama, he is offering one.

What is beginning to lose its effectiveness, it’s cache, is, as Hayward notes, " … disapproval of his personal or official conduct is immoral. You’re presumptively “racist” if you disagree with him …”.

But when polled, especially among younger voters, that presumption is still powerful enough I would guess, to see those voters lie to pollsters.  It is a sort of social conditioning that has taught them to avoid such a label even at the cost of a lie (and even when speaking to a pollster).

So, and it is merely a guess, but based on a life long study of human nature, there is a distinct possibility that  the “Tom Bradley” effect may be pumping up Obama’s popularity numbers.

And, as Hayward points out, as it becomes less and less effective or acceptable to accuse those who do not like Obama of being racists, the possibility of a preference cascade negative to Obama’s favorability is a distinct possibility.

No one who has watched the beginnings of this race can, with any credibility, claim the Obama campaign isn’t struggling.  Donors are deserting him, his record is an albatross around his neck, there is strife between his administration and campaign and many of his political supporters seem luke warm at best with any number of Democrats running for reelection in Congress content not to be seen with the man.  Too many indicators that point to the probability that the numbers CNN are pushing aren’t quite as solid as they may seem.

Hayward concludes with an important update:

I should add that the most powerful cascades occur when an artificially imposed sense of isolation crumbles.  That’s very definitely what is happening here.  Widespread popular discontent with the Obama presidency has been suppressed by making the unhappy campers feel marginalized.  The failure of that strategy is akin to watching a dam burst under high pressure.

The race, once it gets into high gear, is what will cause the “dam burst” as more and more Americans discover they’re not alone in their feelings about the President and that they are not at all on the margins, but very mainstream. 

Once that happens (and it will), when everyone finally realizes they’re not the only one who has noticed the emperor has no clothes, the chances of a one-term Obama presidency increase exponentially.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Blue collar Democrats resent Obama vacations

Call it anecdotal evidence of the survey below and the point made about eroding Democratic support.  There are obviously many reasons for that, but let’s look at one of them.

Recently some Republican pollsters hit 11 swing states and organized focus groups composed mostly of Democrats and Independents.  What they found support the results of the Pew survey below.  The reasons are fairly interesting:

McLaughlin handled blue collar and Catholic voters in Pittsburgh on April 3 and Cleveland on March 20. He found that they are very depressed about the economy and feel that their tax dollars are being sucked up by both the rich and those living on government assistance.

During the focus group discussions about debt and spending cuts, many in his group volunteered criticism of the presidential vacations as something that should be cut. Among the lines McLaughlin wrote down was one from a Democratic woman who said, “Michelle Obama spends $1 million to take the kids to Hawaii,” and another who said, “President Obama was the only president to take so many trips.”

The theme, said McLaughlin, is that the first family “is out of touch” with working class voters.

As has been said, in politics, “perception is reality” and the perception being reported by these focus groups is not one a president who is going to have to rely on populist arguments to hang on to power wants out there.

Now will that be enough to have them drop support for Obama or not turn out to vote?  Obviously, we don’t have enough data to determine that.  But, what you don’t see here is blind support for him either.  The criticism, in this case, works against his populist posturing, however, and that’s not a good thing.

You may be questioning my assertion that Obama is trying build a populist campaign to help him retain power.  However, his only other option is to run on and tout his record.  And any sane political consultant would likely say, “are you kidding”?

So instead he’s engaged in a populist campaign.  Demonizing the rich, Big Oil, student loans, etc.  And his demonization of the rich is working, at least in Democratic circles.  However, that success is being negated by the perception voiced above:

He added that the president’s attack on the rich and GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney’s wealth is working, but the voters were also lumping in the president’s vacation spending in with the General Services Administration’s Las Vegas scandal and federal spending for those who aren’t looking for work.

Again, the populist campaign is being blunted by the president’s behavior and the spending scandal(s) surrounding his administration.

Oh, and another indicator to tuck away:

“There really wasn’t a real dislike for Romney. It was just that he is too rich. But on the other hand there is a start of resentment of the government,” he said. “What surprised me is that these were Democrats back biting on their own president,” added McLaughlin.

It doesn’t surprise me.  There’s a sense of entitlement with this president and his family that is off-putting.  And that is being picked up by potential voters and they don’t like it.  They most likely wouldn’t like it in good economic times, but could likely shrug it off.  But in bad economic times when they’re suffering, they deeply resent their president blithely ignoring their plight and essentially using his office (and their tax dollars) to indulge himself with something they can’t do.

Some analysts have a tendency to wave things like this off as nonsense.  But it isn’t.  A vote is made up of a lot of small things driven by their perceptions. When added up, that leads to a decision.  Who knows what other perceptions these Democrats have to add to this obvious resentment they hold? 

The point, of course, is are they enough to erode their support for Obama?  We’ll see.  But note, when Republican pollsters get this sort of reaction from blue collar Democrats in focus groups, it’s probably not a isolated feeling among that group.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Faith in Federal Government plunges

It has never been particularly high (except in 2003 apparently), but in the last few years, it has taken the same route as the economy.  The Pew Research Center has published a survey has taken a look at the favorability ratings for local state and the Federal government, and the Fed is in Congress and Nancy Pelosi territory when it comes to that.

4-26-12-1

Governments in general have seen their favorability rating slip over the past decade, but none like the federal government.  And the “hope and change” administration has apparently managed to drive the unfavorable view of government even deeper than that mean old Bush guy.

I bring this survey up for a reason.  Many things factor into a vote.  Or a decision not to vote for that matter.  Getting an idea of how voters may feel about such institutions as government is important in trying to figure out how the vote has a whole will go.

The perception they have – favorable of unfavorable – of government is one of those good indicators.

Look, for instance, at the point on the chart around 2008.  Of course we all know what happened then.  But the unfavorability number then wasn’t as bad as it is now. 

It climbed after that mainly on the “hope and change” smoke and mirrors show.  But then reality set in.  Bailouts, trillion dollar debts for as far as the eye could see, failed stimulus, a huge increase in unemployment, passage of a hugely unpopular, expensive and possibly unconstitutional health care act along with cratering housing prices, an economy that continues to bounce along the bottom and an administration that frankly seems clueless.

Reaction? Favorability takes a dive to a new low – 33%.

Now there are those who will tell you that this is no big deal.  Well it is.  What this helps do is frame the debate for one side and tailor it to a receptive electorate.  Big government, intrusive government, expensive government has failed.   And there’s a three year record for everyone to see.  The federal government has tried, for the most part, to do everything the blue model of government says it should do.  It hasn’t worked.

Or said another way, this survey points to an issue that should be popular for one side of the political spectrum and require the other side to defend their model, if they can.

So why is this a problem for the current administration?  Because of where the most significant changes have taken place:

Since Barack Obama’s first year in office, public assessments of the federal government have dropped nine-points, with most of the change among Democrats and independents. In 2009, 61% of Democrats and 35% of independents had favorable opinions of the federal government in Washington, those figures stand at 51% and 27%, respectively, today. Republicans’ views, already low in 2009, have shown less change.

Everyone and their brother knows that the Republicans are going to have a less favorable view of a Democratic administration (just as the numbers were reversed when Bush was in office).  No big deal. The significance comes in the eroding numbers among Democrats and, of course, independents.

In fact, the number for independents is below the average for favorability on the whole.  Indies are in the 73% range of being dissatisfied with the federal government.  And Democrats are in danger of seeing the number slip under 50% if they’re not careful.

What do these numbers impact? 

What they’ll possibly impact, on the one hand, is enthusiasm.  Especially among Democrats.  The 10 point change between July of 2009 and today among Democrats sends a distressing signal to the administration.  They’re losing even their stalwarts.  And you have to figure that if there are 10% who’ve grown dissatisfied with the federal government as run by their own party, there are probably a good percentage leaning toward that as well.

Independents already had a pretty low opinion of the federal government in July 2009 at 35%.  This administration has done nothing to win independents over and in fact, independents now have a lower opinion of this version of the federal government (27%) than they had under Bush (35%).  In the case of Independents, the lower number may motivate more independents to go to the polls and vote for the opposition.

That’s hardly what the administration wants.

So file this survey away as an important data point and indicator of the mood of the electorate.  At this date, It doesn’t point to good times for the administration regardless of what candidate polls say at this stage of the race (they’re worthless).  This sort of information, along with direction of the country polls, etc. give one the mood of the country. As you can see, the mood – when it comes to the federal government – isn’t good.  It reminds one of the mood prior to the “wave elections” we’ve seen in the recent past.

How that will translate in November is still hard to say – but it will become clearer as we get closer.  In the meantime, take all the spin of who will win with a grain of salt.  There’s deep seated underlying dissatisfaction with Washington DC and those who run it.

That could mean big trouble for incumbents – especially the one in the White House.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

ICYMI: Democrats losing the voter fraud argument

At least in the eyes of the American people if this Rasmussen poll is accurate:

Despite his insistence that voter fraud is not a serious problem, Attorney General Eric Holder was embarrassed last week when a video surfaced of someone illegally obtaining a ballot to vote under Holder’s name in his home precinct in Washington, D.C. Most voters consider voter fraud a problem in America today and continue to overwhelmingly support laws requiring people to show photo identification before being allowed to vote.

Why do they support the requirement so overwhelmingly?

Simple common sense.  The arguments we’ve been putting forward for years – a photo ID is absolutely necessary to do many of today’s daily chores, so producing one to vote is no big deal.   And, in fact, it helps maintain the integrity of a system that badly needs such a shot in the arm.

Or said another way, most Americans don’t buy the argument that voter fraud isn’t a problem.  Additionally most Americans certainly don’t see one of the solutions – voter ID—to be a problem either. 

We’re not talking about a slim majority here:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 64% of Likely U.S. Voters rate voter fraud at least a somewhat serious problem in the United States today, and just 24% disagree. This includes 35% who consider it a Very Serious problem and seven percent (7%) who view it as Not At All Serious. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

As for photo IDs?

Seventy percent (70%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to cast their ballot. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% oppose this kind of requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

So here’s a loser for the left.  It is something that actually hurts the left because most people don’t accept the argument that obtaining acceptable ID is either discriminatory or difficult.  They also know, from personal experience, how often they are asked to produce such ID while navigating everyday life.

Consequently, when the left tries those arguments, it falls on deaf ears.  They are instead seen as a group with something to hide, a group with an ulterior motive for wanting the requirement struck down.  And that motive isn’t seen as a positive one either. 

So?  So let the left continue to push the issue and continue to alienate those who see the requirement as a common sense safeguard against fraud.  It certainly isn’t going to help Democrats convince voters they’re for voter integrity, that’s for sure.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

1 3 4 5 6 7 20