Multi Medium

Washington Post Calls 85% Of America “Denialists”

Well isn’t this special…

The current focus of the Social Security denialists’ ire is President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which they view as a stalking horse for gutting Social Security. A new group, the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, which includes the AFL-CIO, the NAACP and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, asserts that the president’s two choices to chair the panel, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, “sent a clear message. Social Security is on the chopping block.” The groups’ list of what changes are unacceptable is longer than what it would consider: no increase in retirement age; no reduction in benefits; no “means testing.” Rather, they say, the adjustments should come from the revenue side. Though the possibilities are not specified, they include raising the payroll tax rate, raising the ceiling for income on which benefits are paid or finding a new revenue source, such as the estate tax or a new financial transactions tax.

We would prefer a more balanced solution, one that relies on a combination of revenue increases and benefit adjustments. On the revenue side, it’s essential that the funding source come from within the Social Security system itself. The coalition is correct that Social Security should not be used to deal with deficit problems outside the program, but the converse is also true: Getting Social Security on a sustainable footing should not add to the deficit. Raising the payroll tax ceiling to cover the same share of wages that it did in 1983 would make sense, but that would only solve about one-third of the long-term problem. Some adjustments on the benefits side, particularly making benefits less generous for the highest-income recipients, would also make sense.

…Or the payroll tax ceiling could simply be removed, which as I understand it would fix 100% of the problem.  Funny how “benefit adjustments” seems like a perfectly acceptable idea but removing the cap doesn’t.

But if the WaPo wants to call us denialists, we’re in good company:

Social Security turns 75 this week and remains an intensely popular program with voters of all ages, who strongly oppose cutting it to reduce the deficit, according to a new survey paid for by AARP and conducted by GfK Roper.

The poll, which was provided exclusively to HuffPost, finds that 85 percent of adults oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit; 72 percent “strongly oppose” doing so.

Too bad there just doesn’t seem to be any political will for doing what a mere 85% of the country wants.

2 comments August 12th, 2010 at 11:39am Posted by Eli

Insight Of The Day

From a Philly Inquirer story about Republican PA-GOV candidate Tom Corbett trying to walk back his comments about how the jobless would rather collect unemployment than work:

The Quinnipiac University poll gave Corbett an edge of 44 to 37 percent over Onorato, with many voters still undecided. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.

The previous Quinnipiac poll, released shortly before the May 18 primary, gave Corbett a virtually identical 43-37 advantage in a head-to-head race with Onorato.

“That’s a formula for a victory for Republicans in Pennsylvania if those numbers hold up,” Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said Tuesday.

That’s right, the party with the most votes usually wins.  That’s some mighty good analyzin’ there, I tell you what.

Add comment July 15th, 2010 at 11:12am Posted by Eli

The Wages Of Selling Out Is Mistrust

No one could have anticipated…

Almost four out of five Americans surveyed in a Bloomberg National Poll this month say they have just a little or no confidence that the measure being championed by congressional Democrats will prevent or significantly soften a future crisis. More than three-quarters say they don’t have much or any confidence the proposal will make their savings and financial assets more secure.

A plurality — 47 percent — says the bill will do more to protect the financial industry than consumers; 38 percent say consumers would benefit more.

Or this…

A majority or plurality disapproves of Obama’s management of the economy, health care, the budget deficit, the overhaul of financial market regulations and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted July 9- 12. In addition, almost 6 in 10 respondents say the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause. The Senate is scheduled to begin voting on the financial regulation bill today.

Almost two-thirds say they feel the nation is headed in the wrong direction, an even more sour assessment than in March when 58 percent felt that way. Two-thirds of independent voters are pessimistic, while just 56 percent of Democrats offer a vote of confidence.

Great going, guys.  You alienated your own base without doing squat to entice conservatives.  That’s really going to work out well for you in November.

Add comment July 15th, 2010 at 07:12am Posted by Eli

Insane Disturbing Stat Of The Day

In case you need more proof of just how completely unhinged and, well, kind of evil Republicans are…

We have some new national polling coming out tomorrow on offshore drilling. The most astounding number from the poll? 28% of Republicans said the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico made them more likely to support drilling off the coast to an equal 28% who said it made them less likely to be supportive. 44% said it made no difference to them and that’s understandable, but why would an oil spill make you more supportive of drilling?

The only two explanations I can think of are:

1) “Fuck you, liberals!  Anything that drives them this crazy must be a good thing.”

2) “Now that I’ve seen the offshore drilling worst-case scenario… it’s not so bad, really.  Losing an entire coastline every once in a while seems like an acceptable risk to me.”

(h/t Michael Whitney)

2 comments May 11th, 2010 at 11:26am Posted by Eli

The Populitists

Man, that whole Tea Party narrative is just looking more and more threadbare.  The “spontaneous outpouring of patriotic concern by ordinary citizens who are totally not funded by corporations or GOP operatives in any way, nope” myth got blown up almost immediately, and now it looks like the “working-class heartland Americans who are worried about their finances and sick of the government always choosing corporations and rich people over the little guy” story is on pretty shaky ground too:

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

(…)

Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.

They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

So instead of being blue collar just-folks frightened by unemployment and uncertainty, and outraged by the inequity of the government bailing out fatcats while the poor struggle, it turns out that the teabaggers are moderately-stocky cats who are outraged by the government’s feeble and inadequate attempts to help the poor out.  Especially when the poor are those people.

Those of us on the left (myself included) who thought there was some slim chance of making common cause with them against a shared corporate enemy, well, we were completely wrong.  The teabaggers are just the latest media-darling flavor-of-the-month iteration of the archetypal I-got-mine-fuck-you conservative.  They’re populist only if your idea of populist is a bunch of upper-middle-class people who want to cut off the poor, and the only common ground we have with them is our dislike of Harry Reid and Blanche Lincoln.

We were right about them being mostly racist old white guys, though.

Add comment April 15th, 2010 at 07:48pm Posted by Eli

Dear Congress: We Hate ALL Of You.

Love, 50% Of The American People:

In fact, when it comes to Congress, many voters would like to start anew. Asked if they would “replace every single member of Congress, including your own representative” if they could, 50% said “yes” while 47% said “no.”

50% is an incredibly huge number for such an extreme position, and suggests that a sizable majority of Americans would be happy to replace a sizable majority of Congress.

Most striking of all:

Those that said yes were asked if they would still be game if the Democrats kept the majority in Congress, and 72% said they would, while 22% said they wouldn’t. Asked if they would go along if replacing all lawmakers would put the Republicans in control, 73% said yes and 24% said no.

The disgust with both parties is so deep that it doesn’t even matter which party is nominally in control.  And quite frankly, the more the healthcare reform debacle unfolds, the more I agree.

Add comment March 20th, 2010 at 11:35am Posted by Eli

Epic Win

This. Is. Awesome.

Republicans like a politician who stands up for what he believes — even if he believes the Republican Party is populated by a bunch of “knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.”

The candidate leading the Florida GOP primary to determine who will take on Rep. Alan Grayson, the Democrat who represents the Orlando-based district, is none other than Grayson himself, according to a poll paid for by his campaign. Grayson is a freshman congressman who has drawn scorn from the GOP and has quickly built a nationwide following of progressives.

The poll has Grayson leading the 13 Republicans — among Republicans — with 27.8 percent of the vote. The congressman who mocked the GOP health care plan by saying that it amounts to telling people not to get sick and if they do, to die quickly, received more support than all of the Republican candidates combined.

No GOP candidate scored above 3.7 percent; 57.7 percent said they were undecided.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Oh yeah, he’s really in Desperate Electoral Peril all right.

I know it’s his own poll, but if the numbers are even close to right it’s hugely embarrassing for the Republicans.  It’s also some pretty brilliant and creative campaign messaging.

1 comment March 5th, 2010 at 11:24am Posted by Eli

This Is What Happens

When you don’t deliver on your campaign promises.  Or actively work to sabotage them.

A year after supporting Barack Obama for president by an overwhelming 2-to-1 ratio, young adults are cooling quickly toward his Democrats amid dissatisfaction over the lack of change in Washington and an escalating war in Afghanistan.

A study by the Pew Research Center, being released Wednesday, highlights the eroding support from 18- to 29-year- olds whose strong turnout in November 2008 was read by some demographers as the start of a new Democratic movement.

The findings are significant because they offer further proof that the diverse coalition of voters Obama cobbled together in 2008 — including high numbers of first-timers, young minorities and youths — are not Democratic Party voters who can necessarily be counted on.

While young adults remain decidedly more liberal, the survey found the Democratic advantage among 18- to 29-year-olds has substantially narrowed, from a record 62 percent identifying as Democrat vs. 30 percent for the Republicans in 2008, down to 54 percent vs. 40 percent last December. It was the largest percentage point jump in those who identified or leaned Republican among all the voting age groups.

Young adults’ voting enthusiasm also crumbled.

During the presidential election, turnout among 18- to 29-year-olds was the highest in years, comprising roughly 20 percent of the voters in many states including Virginia and New Jersey, due in part to high participation from young blacks and Hispanics.

That percentage, however, dropped by half for the governors’ races in those states last November, where Republicans celebrated wins as black groups pushed Obama to do more to soften the economic blow from mortgage foreclosures and Latinos saw little progress on immigration reform. Young adults also were the least likely of any age group to identify themselves as regular voters.

They could have been “the start of a new Democratic movement”, but Obama chose to turn his back on them the second his election was secure.  Apparently he either thinks he can win without them, that he can turn on the charm and the uplifting hopey talk when he needs it, or that they’ll just have to vote for him because the alternative is so much worse.  Personally, I wouldn’t bet my presidency on any of those outcomes.  Maybe he thinks grateful PhRMA and Wall Street dollars will be enough to buy the 2012 election, but I kinda doubt that too.

And it won’t be just the youth vote Obama will be losing; he’s going to lose a big chunk of the Democratic base too.  Contempt and betrayal are not really great drivers for turnout.

Add comment February 26th, 2010 at 07:21am Posted by Eli

This Just In…

Earth to Obama and Democrats: How many times do we have to tell you that the reason everyone hates the Senate healthcare bill is because it doesn’t have a public option?

I know this is hard and painful for you to hear, but you would actually improve your re-election chances by moving left, not right.  But perhaps you’re less worried about staying in office than you are about your employment after office.

(h/t Phoenix Woman)

Add comment February 22nd, 2010 at 07:18pm Posted by Eli

Texas School Board: Mission Accomplished!

Looks like all that hard work on shaping textbook content is really paying off:

Nearly a third of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time, and more than half disagree with the theory that humans developed from earlier species of animals, according to the University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.

(…)

• 38 percent said human beings developed over millions of years with God guiding the process and another 12 percent said that development happened without God having any part of the process. Another 38 percent agreed with the statement “God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago.”

• Asked about the origin and development of life on earth without injecting humans into the discussion, and 53 percent said it evolved over time, “with a guiding hand from God.” They were joined by 15 percent who agreed on the evolution part, but “with no guidance from God.” About a fifth — 22 percent — said life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time.

• Most of the Texans in the survey — 51 percent — disagree with the statement, “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.” Thirty-five percent agreed with that statement, and 15 percent said they don’t know.

• Did humans live at the same time as the dinosaurs? Three in ten Texas voters agree with that statement; 41 percent disagree, and 30 percent don’t know.

That’ll do, Texas School Board.  That’ll do.

(h/t WT)

2 comments February 17th, 2010 at 09:29pm Posted by Eli

This Can Only Be Good For John McCain

To me, what’s most striking about these poll numbers is not that McCain’s overall approval rating in AZ is at 40%, but that the story offers up his 52% approval rating among AZ Republicans as its “but it’s not all bad news for McCain” graf.

Add comment January 29th, 2010 at 09:10pm Posted by Eli

Ralph Nader’s Smirking Revenge

It is truly amazing that anyone can look at a shocking Democratic loss in Massachusetts and conclude that it’s a backlash against liberal overreach.  Does anyone really seriously believe that Obama and the Democrats have been too liberal for Massachusetts? Really?  Especially when they’ve fallen far short of enacting the platform they were overwhelmingly elected on?  But if one doesn’t trust logic and common sense, one can always check the polling:

HEALTH CARE BILL OPPONENTS THINK IT “DOESN’T GO FAR ENOUGH”

• by 3 to 2 among Obama voters who voted for Brown
• by 6 to 1 among Obama voters who stayed home

(18% of Obama supporters who voted supported Brown.)

VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION

• 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
• 86% of Obama voters who stayed home

OBAMA VOTERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER

• 57% of Brown voters say Obama “not delivering enough” on change he promised
• 49% to 37% among voters who stayed home

Oh yeah, that’s a real clear call for centrism, all right.

Here’s what I’m seeing: In 2000, Ralph Nader basically ran on a platform of “Republicans and Democrats are all corporate whores, there’s no real difference between them.”  The economy was in great shape at the tail end of a pro-corporate but generally successful Democratic presidency, so his message fell on deaf ears.  If it ain’t broke, etc.

Then Dubya and his pet Congress subject us to eight years of truly disastrous policy that enriches corporations and wealth at the expense of everyone else.  By 2005, America is thoroughly sick of it and starts voting Republicans out en masse in 2006, culminating in a Democratic president and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress in 2009, not to mention a frightening economic collapse engineered by years of unconditional corporatism.

And what happened?  Nothing.  This Democratic president and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress continue to coddle, protect, and bail out the same corporations who crashed the economy while doing nothing for their victims.  Americans swept in the Democrats expecting change and reform, and got more of the godawful corporate same.  If ever there was a time for them to be receptive to Nader’s message that both parties are indistinguishable corporate whores, it would be now, when the economy is struggling and the Democrats are following the same corrupt and foolish path as the Republicans (whose awfulness is still very fresh in everyone’s minds).

I don’t know that it will be Nader himself (in fact, I expect it won’t be), but to me it looks like the conditions are ripe for a populist throw-all-the-bums-out third party to make an impact in the 2012 election cycle.  I don’t know whether it’ll be tea partiers from the right (that’d be my bet) or greens from the left, or even some weird coalition of both, but someone is going to capitalize on the “I voted for the Democrats and nothing changed, but I don’t want the Republicans back either” frustration that’s bubbling up out there, mark my words.

1 comment January 21st, 2010 at 11:35am Posted by Eli

What I’ve Been Saying

Scarecrow has a great post about just how badly Obama and the Democrats have sold us out on healthcare, and how pathetic our supposed “reform” is when compared to the rest of the developed world, and Drew Westen decries Obama’s abject lack of leadership.  I think the root cause is the same: Our government has become so completely captive to corporate donors that it is literally almost impossible to pass any bill that might harm corporate interests in any way.

As I put it back in July:

As the increasingly discouraging healthcare “reform” process plays out, the endgame makes the most sense when you remember that the Prime Directive for Obama and most of Congress is this:

First, do no harm… to the insurance companies.

(…)

This is why single-payor is off the table (and how many of today’s public option advocates wouldn’t prefer single-payor if they thought it was attainable?) – it would kill the insurance industry outright (aside from the much smaller business of providing gap coverage), whereas a correctly managed (i.e., small or unsuccessful) public option would only wound them.

The fundamental problem is that the starting point has never been “How do we improve healthcare for our constituents?”, but rather, “How do we make sure this doesn’t hurt the insurance industry?”

And at FDL in August:

Need to slash greenhouse emissions to prevent the ice caps from melting?  You have to do it without hurting the energy companies.

Need to rescue the economy and reform the financial system?  You have to do it without hurting Wall Street.

Need to make healthcare affordable and available to everyone?  You have to do it without hurting the insurance companies.

Need to reform campaign finance?  You have to do it without diminishing the influence of the corporations or the advantages of incumbency.

It is virtually impossible to achieve meaningful reform within such nonsensical parameters.

I wish I could see a way out of this loop, but campaign finance (the primary source of the corruption) is inside it.

3 comments December 21st, 2009 at 01:03pm Posted by Eli

So Much For “I’m Just Voting My District”…

Okay, so it’s technically only the Democratic primary.  But if the excuse the Blue Dogs and ConservaDems offer up for voting against meaningful healthcare reform is that they have to do it to hold onto their seats, some primary losses sure would make that excuse look foolish (and also, good riddance).

I don’t have much of an expectation that conservative Democrats will vote for healthcare reform (or financial reform, or climate change reform, or…) out of conscience or a desire to do the right thing, but if they do it out of fear, I can live with that.  Although I’d still rather see them gone, even if it means they’re replaced by real Republicans instead of real Democrats.  Just so long as the Democrats have enough members left to hold onto their majorities so we don’t have to put up with frivolous investigations and impeachment attempts every five minutes.

Add comment November 20th, 2009 at 07:14am Posted by Eli

Palin Pollin’

I can’t say this is exactly surprising:

In case all the publicity around her new book is going to her head, Sarah Palin is receiving some sobering news in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll: She’s not all that popular.

The former Alaska governor’s popularity score is a negative 9, with 43% liking her and 52% seeing her unfavorably.

“Favorability is the most basic measure of a public figure’s popularity; in politics, where majorities win, it’s trouble when it goes negative, as it’s been for Palin since October 2008,” notes ABC’s poll maven, Gary Langer.

There’s more bad news for Palin: A solid 60% say she’s not qualified to be President, and 53% say they definitely would not vote for her in 2012.

Sooo… 7% of Americans would vote for Palin even though they don’t think she’s qualified to be President?  Fascinating.

1 comment November 16th, 2009 at 08:02pm Posted by Eli

The Weakest Of Reids

(I really wanted to hit this yesterday, but I spent all night wrestling with a new router that turned out to be defective)

Finally, a poll that asks the right question:

Among all Nevadans, 52 percent described him as a weak leader, and only 24 percent said strong. Even among Democrats, 47 percent said weak and 39 percent said strong. Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark.

More than half — 54 percent — of all those surveyed also said Reid is “ineffective” in the Senate, while 23 percent said he was “effective.” Even among Democrats, a soul-crushing 51 percent said ineffective, and only 39 percent said effective.

Asked if Reid should be the Democratic nominee for Senate in 2010 or if it is time for someone new to represent the party, a minority of Democrats — 38 percent — agreed that the majority leader of the Untied States Senate should be their party’s nominee. Only 13 percent said it is time for someone new, but 49 percent weren’t sure.

Among Nevadans with an unfavorable view of Reid, 47 percent think Reid is “too far to the left” while 41 percent think he’s “not progressive enough.” Among Democrats who view him unfavorably, a whopping 92 percent think he’s not progressive enough, and only 6 percent said he is too far to the left.

“The numbers say it all,” said PCCC’s Adam Green. “If Harry Reid starts acting like a strong leader and passes the public option, he solidifies his standing with Democrats and Independents and has a chance to survive 2010. If he continues to be weak — refusing to unify the Democratic Caucus behind an up-or-down vote and allowing the public option to be watered down to nothing — Democratic senators will likely be looking for a new Majority Leader in 2011.”

Reid weak? Really?  Wherever did anyone get that idea?  Well, aside from all the time Reid has done the Republicans’ bidding (remember telecom immunity?) and all the times he has made no effort to whip his caucus, consider some of these recent data points:

o Reid not only allows members of his caucus to threaten to join a Republican filibuster of the public option, but he won’t even reveal who they are.

o Funny how the White House is so heavily involved in the legislative process and dealmaking in the Senate, but not the House.  Could it be that Pelosi told them to butt out, and Reid didn’t?

o Which is probably why Pelosi opted to bring the most progressive healthcare bill to the floor, and Reid’s still hemming and hawing and consulting with the White House.

This poll truly is a wonderful thing.  Finally, we have some data to push back against the dishonest conventional wisdom that Democrats lose support because they’re too liberal, when the reality is that they usually lose support for being wimps or corporate sellouts (no one could have anticipated…), and the corollary that they only win elections by being mealy-mouthed centrists (see: Rahm Emanuel, 2006 Congressional Landslide Orchestrated  Solely By The Genius Of).

Now can we please get pollsters to start adding “why” questions whenever they ask people for approve/disapprove or who they’ll vote for?  More Democrats will either start to realize that being strong liberals actually improves their job security, or else fully expose themselves as corrupt corporate whores who don’t care what their constituents think.  At the very least, they would no longer be able to hide behind the false conventional wisdom that corporatism masquerading as moderation is what America wants.

Add comment October 22nd, 2009 at 07:15am Posted by Eli

Who Knew Americans Were So Uncivil?

This is probably not a surprise to anyone but the media, the Democrats, and the Obama White House:

The new Washington Post poll finally asks people about their cravings for bipartisanship in the right way, and its finding really challenges the conventional wisdom that people want bipartisan health care compromise at all costs.

Specifically: A majority wants a Dem-only bill rather than a bipartisan one if the Dem-only one includes a public insurance option and the bipartisan one doesn’t. A majority of Independents wants the same. From the internals:

Which of these would you prefer –- (a plan that includes some form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance, but is approved without support from Republicans in Congress); or

(a plan that is approved with support from Republicans in Congress, but does not include any form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance)?

Prefer government-sponsored insurance: 51%

Prefer Republican support: 37%

(…)

Again: Other public polls have offered respondents a straight choice — do they want a partisan bill or a bipartisan one — without explaining that winning over GOP support has actual policy consequences for the final bill that they might not like.

When this is explained clearly — and the WaPo framing is a far more accurate depiction of the choice the public and lawmakers face — a majority wants the partisan, Dem-only bill with the public option. Indeed, a majority wants the public option more than they want bipartisanship for its own sake. Okay?

Amazing.  A majority of Americans would rather have a “partisan” bill than an ineffectual shitty bill that only helps insurance companies.  No one could have anticipated.

Now the question is whether anyone’s listening, or if an ineffectual shitty bill that only helps insurance companies was the goal all along and “bipartisanship” was simply the excuse for achieving it.

Add comment October 20th, 2009 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

Only 64%?

Apparently that’s how many Republicans are completely batshit insane:

The survey by Public Policy Polling finds that 42 percent of Republicans believe Barack Obama was born outside of the United States while 22 percent said they were unsure.

But of course, the primary focus of the story has to be the much smaller percentage of wacky Democrats who believe that Dubya intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen.  As opposed to merely believing that he was so  spectacularly, criminally unconcerned about the possibility of a catastrophic attack that he couldn’t be bothered to lift one single finger to try to stop it.  Yeah, those Democrats are cuh-razy.

So, it’s going to be Palin/Bachmann on the Republican ticket in 2012, isn’t it.  If not Palin/Beck.

(h/t Julia)

Add comment September 24th, 2009 at 09:39am Posted by Eli

More Like This, Please.

One of the things I’ve been wanting to see is polling at the state or district level that shows whether the Blue Dogs and conservadems who oppose the public option are really representing their constituents, or the insurance industry.  Well, I guess Kos was wondering too, because he took a poll of Blue Dog and professional healthcare reform killer Jim Co-oper, er, Cooper’s district.  And guess what: 61% of his constituents want a public option, and (by an amazing coincidence) 60% disapprove of his actions on healthcare.

And this appears to be more than just a mild preference.  34% of his constituents (and 47% of his Democratic ones) would be less likely to vote for him in 2010 if he opposes the public option, and that’s on top of re-elect numbers that are already weak – 23% of his constituents intend to vote against him next year, and 41% would consider it.  Among Democrats, those numbers are 14 and 42%.

I would love to see more polls like these.  The more decisively we can strip away the I’m-just-voting-my-district excuse, the better.

Add comment August 24th, 2009 at 07:22am Posted by Eli

Deja Vu

Senate Guru points to some encouraging poll results (caveat: Rasmussen):

13.  What’s that number?  It’s the gap between Specter and Congressman Sestak in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll.  Specter’s lead over Congressman Sestak is only 47-34 according to Rasmussen.  Rasmussen’s last poll, in June, showed the 19-point deficit, a 51-32 result.

Rasmussen also reminds us that Specter still remains “much better known” across the state than Congressman Sestak.  In other words, Congressman Sestak still has plenty of room to grow in terms of name ID as his campaign gets underway, but has already cut his deficit by a third.  Also, this is the very first non-Franklin & Marshall poll (F&M’s numbers were relatively very low for both candidates) to show Specter under 50%.

(…)

This poll is bad news for Specter and great news for Congressman Sestak – not just because it shows Congressman Sestak closing the gap, but also because it adds credibility to his campaign.  Specter winning is not remotely a foregone conclusion.  The more that PA-Dem primary voters recognize that, the more open they’ll be to Congressman Sestak’s candidacy, and the less power the Ed Rendell machine will have to stop the political dam from breaking.

This reminds me a lot of Lamont’s campaign against Lieberman three years ago.  Most CT Democrats were desperate for an alternative to Lieberman, and all Lamont really had to do was make sure they knew who he was, and could see him as a viable, more progressive alternative.  Of course, the problem in CT was that Lieberman was able to run as an independent and get the benefit of the Republican vote, where PA affords Specter no such luxury.

It is probably also worth noting that outside of the Democratic party establishment (feh), Specter’s Democratic support is almost certainly a lot thinner than Lieberman’s was.  Lieberman was a Democratic senator (in name, at least) for 18 years, whereas for Specter it will be closer to 18 months.

My prediction is that Specter will attempt the same play Lieberman used in CT: Pretend to be a lot more progressive than he actually is, than revert to form immediately after the election.  Again, though, decades of being an actual Republican will make that a lot harder for him to pull off than it was for Joementum.  Fingers crossed.

Add comment August 13th, 2009 at 09:23am Posted by Eli

Has The Point Already Tipped?

This can only be good for Republicans.

Chris Cillizza in the WaPo highlighted a new poll out today on party identification by state which contains not a grain of good news – for the Republican party.

(…)

The Republicans currently have an edge in just 5 states, Alaska, Alabama, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. Since the last Gallup poll in 2008 measuring voter ID by state, 9 states have changed classification from one category to another. Virginia, Indiana, Florida, Georgia, South Dakota and Nebraska moved from the Republican category to the Democrat, Colorado, Nevada and Alabama moved toward the Republicans.

To put this in starker terms. Add up all the states which strongly identify as Republican and you have a total of 15 electoral votes. Do the same for the Democrats and you have a total of 350 electoral votes. Not a typo – 15 electoral votes for the Republicans and 350 for the Dems.

Declining poll numbers are transitory but voter ID tends to be more static. This poll is a stark reminder of the problems Republicans face in moving from their status as a regionally-based party into one with national appeal. Remember this when you hear the pundits breathlessly predicting a “Republican comeback.” It’s going to be hard to stage a comeback when you’ve only got a majority of voters in five states.

Regionally-based party?  There’s only one red state in the entire South – the only region where they have any concentration of states is a subset of the Mountain West.  Presumably turnout is a force-multiplier, and presumably the South still has a lot of registered Dixiecrats, but that’s still one hell of a bleak map for the GOP.

In the comments to a previous post, I said:

The problem with focusing on the crazies is that their demographic is shrinking. At a certain point, even 100% of the crazies won’t be enough. We may have passed that point already, in fact – I certainly hope so.

It kinda looks like maybe we have.  Now if we can just get the Democrats to stop acting like Republicans, we’ll be all set.

(h/t PW)

1 comment August 4th, 2009 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

A New Low For The GOP

I wouldn’t have thought this was even possible:

Only 34% are confident that GOP leaders Congress will make the right decisions about health care reform — less than the insurance companies (35%) or the pharmaceutical companies (40%).

It doesn’t get much worse than that.  Essentially, the message here is that if you let the pharma and insurance companies design healthcare reform to be just exactly the way they want it… they would still do a better job than the Republicans.

The Democrats don’t really have much room to gloat, though – they’re barely ahead of pharma.  Which is probably just about right, actually.

Add comment June 17th, 2009 at 07:09pm Posted by Eli

Oh, Don’t Tease Me.

Chris Cillizza gets my hopes up…

Just 38 percent of voters had a favorable opinion of Reid as compared to 50 percent who had an unfavorable opinion in a Mason-Dixon poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review Journal.

Asked whether they were planning to vote to reelect Reid next fall or would vote to replace him, 35 percent said they would cast a vote for Reid while 45 percent said they planned to replace him. Another 17 percent said they would consider replacing Reid.

More (potentially) troubling for the Democratic leader was the fact that just 61 percent of self-identified Democrats said they planned to vote to reelect Reid. Looked at one way, that means Reid has room to grow among base voters. Looked at another, the very people among whom Reid should be strongest are pretty strongly divided in their attitudes toward him.

Only 39% of NV Democrats wouldn’t vote for Reid?  Haven’t they been paying attention?  Haven’t they watched him completely squander their party’s overwhelming advantage in the Senate?  Reid losing, even to a Republican, would be the best thing that could happen to the Democratic party.  Assuming they don’t choose, say, Ben Nelson as his replacement.  Which, quite frankly, seems entirely possible to me.

1 comment May 20th, 2009 at 07:50am Posted by Eli

No! Really?

This can only be good for Republicans!

The AP obtained partial results from a GOP poll that showed Republicans “are widely viewed by the public as less competent than Democrats to handle issue ranging from health care to education and energy.”

“Democrats were favored by a margin of 61% to 29% on education; 59% to 30% on health care and 59% to 31% on energy. Congress is expected to consider major legislation later this year in all three areas.”

“Democats were also viewed with more confidence in handling taxes, long a Republican strong suit. The only issue among nine in the survey where the two parties were rated as even was in the war on terror.”

Wow, no-one could have anticipated that FUCKING UP EVERY SINGLE THING YOU TOUCH might have an adverse effect on perceptions of your competence.

And while that last sentence may sound like a bit of a silver lining, remember that terrorism is supposed to be the one issue that the GOP totally owns, and they’re tied with the Democrats?  The Republicans are so screwed right now, and they have no-one but themselves to blame.  Not only was their flagship administration criminal and incompetent, but they chose to completely abdicate their responsibility to rein in that criminality and incompetence.

Chickens, meet roost.

(h/t Phoenix Woman)

Add comment April 30th, 2009 at 07:59pm Posted by Eli

Poll Of The Day

Shorter American people: How can we miss you when you won’t go to jail?

That George W. Bush Presidential Library is going to need one hell of a theme park attached to it.

Add comment April 29th, 2009 at 08:23pm Posted by Eli

And How’s That Working Out For You?

Once again, it appears that the Republicans have outsmarted themselves, as two of their bright ideas have only managed to make them look even more obnoxious than before, if such a thing is possible.

Remember their Cunning Plan to keep Al Franken out of his Senate seat indefinitely by having Norm Coleman drag out his appeal process to, like, forever?  Even Republican voters are fed up with that one:

A strong majority of Minnesotans think that the election and post-election recount and trial were properly conducted; a strong majority of Minnesotans think that Senator-elect Al Franken won fair and square; a strong majority of Minnesotans want Coleman to concede and release the Senate seat he is holding hostage.  Only about one-quarter of Minnesotans – the dead-enders – think that Coleman won and that he should press on with his appeals.  The will of the voters, for which Coleman keeps saying that he is fighting, is clear in its desire for Coleman to concede and allow Senator-elect Franken to be seated so that Minnesota can again enjoy full representation in the U.S. Senate.  Help put pressure on Coleman to concede by joining the One Dollar a Day to Make Norm Coleman Go Away effort.

And how about the tea parties, those outpourings of Teh Populist Rage against Obama and his Islamosocialism?  Yeah, they sure kicked his ass with those:

Analyzing the polls Post TeaParty shows Obama’s Approval has either been steady or has increased, right and wrong track significantly better and the GOP has either declined or are still in the same sorry state.

Gallup

Obama,s approval April 15-17   61%

April 22-24   66%

http://www.gallup.com/…

Fox News         March 31-01    58%

April 22-23    62%

Pew Research     03/31- 04/06   61

04/14- 04/21   63%

ABC/WaPo         03/26 – 03/29   66%

04/21 – 04/24    69

Right/wrong track
Right      Wrong     No opinion

4/24/09          50        48        2
3/29/09          42        57        1
2/22/09          31        67        2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

b. The Republicans in Congress

Approve   Disapprove   No opinion
4/24/09         30          64            6

2/22/09         38          56            6

c. How much confidence do you have in [ITEM] to make the right decisions for the country’s future – a great deal of confidence, a good amount, just some or none at all?

Republicans in congress

Grt deal/Good amt-   —- Some/None —-

4/24/09   21                    78

1/16/09   29                    69

The most devastating part of this poll ROFLMAO!!

There is a warning sign for the GOP in the new poll: 21 percent of those surveyed said they identify as Republicans, the fewest to do so in a Post-ABC poll in more than 25 years. Last fall, Democrats outnumbered Republicans at the polls by the biggest margin in network exit polls going back to the 1982 midterms.

Stuart Rothenberg,s take on the “Party of no” chances in 2010

there are no signs of a dramatic rebound for the party, and the chance of Republicans winning control of either chamber in the 2010 midterm elections is zero. Not “close to zero.” Not “slight” or “small.” Zero.

And now the conservative base wants the GOP to Embrace The Crazy. Good luck with that, guys – that’s obviously just what the American people want.

3 comments April 26th, 2009 at 09:51pm Posted by Eli

So What?

So Gallup is doing another poll on whether or not the American public supports criminal investigations of the Bush administration’s justification and use of torture.

But should it really matter?  I mean, since when should public opinion determine whether the rule of law gets upheld, whether criminals get held accountable?

And conversely, how dare conservatives and concern trolls like Broder proclaim that any investigations or prosecutions would be politically motivated?  If they’re so confident that the Bush administration did nothing illegal, shouldn’t they welcome the chance to clear their names?  And if they’re not so confident, are they once again admitting that they place partisan loyalty above respect for the law?

Add comment April 26th, 2009 at 02:26pm Posted by Eli

Finally, I Agree With The Republicans.

Not even Republicans like Republicans any more:

One thing we’ve been chronicling here is the increasing disillusionment that Republicans are experiencing with their own party’s Congressional leadership, and a new poll today finds that approval for GOP leaders is dropping among Republicans with astonishing speed.

That’s the second poll with such a finding. The other day I flagged a Rasmussen poll finding that Republican leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are viewed favorably by only a minority of GOP voters.

Today a new Pew poll confirms that this isn’t an outlier. Check out these numbers buried in here (click to enlarge):

The approval rating of GOP leaders among Republicans has plummeted 12 points in a month, down from 55% in February to a minority of 43% now. That’s striking.

Not only that, but approval of GOP leaders overall has dropped to 28% overall — the lowest rating for GOP leaders in 12 years of Pew polling.

(…)

Update: A third poll is confirming this trend. The weekly poll commissioned from Research 2000 by Daily Kos finds that minorities of Republicans view Boehner and McConnell favorably, with Boehner’s numbers falling particularly fast.

Funny how polls like this never seem to clarify whether the dissatisfaction is because the party leadership is too far to the left or too far to the right, which you’d think is a pretty obvious followup question to ask.  Also funny how both parties typically interpret bad poll numbers to mean that they’re too far to the left.

Add comment March 17th, 2009 at 11:13am Posted by Eli

Second-Least Surprising Story Of The Month

Americans don’t like Rush Limbaugh:

The following data is based on a national Democracy Corps survey of 1,000 2008 voters (830 landline, 170 cell phone weighted; 880 landline, 120 cell phone unweighted) conducted March 5 through 8, 2009. Margin of error: 3.1 percent. Some data shown reflects results from 830 likely 2010 voters (863 unweighted; margin of error 3.4 percent).

A Question of Limbaugh’s Republican Leadership

• After McCain and Gingrich, Limbaugh seen as among most influential to Republican Party:

John McCain	38%
Newt Gingrich	25%
Rush Limbaugh	24%
Others	78%
Respondents were allowed to choose two Republican leaders in this question.

Americans’ Views of Limbaugh

• 57 % feel Rush Limbaugh “does not share my values”

	Shares Values	Doesn’t Share
Conservative Republicans	66%	25%
Moderate/Liberal Republican	39%	39%
Moderate/Conservative Dems	13%	77%
Liberal Democrats	10%	86%

Here’s what I wanna know: Who the hell are the 10% of liberal Democrats who think Rush Limbaugh shares their values?  They either don’t know who Rush is, or they don’t know who they are.

Add comment March 11th, 2009 at 10:20pm Posted by Eli

This Can Only Be God Good For Republicans

These are some surprising and interesting poll numbers:

According to the the American Religious Identification Survey which queried over 54,000 people in the U.S., 15% of Americans have no religion, an almost 7% increase from in 1990. The number of Christians overall has decreased 10% since 1990  with Christians who aren’t Catholic a declining segment of the country: Over the last seven years, mainline Protestants dropped from just over 17 percent to 12.9 percent of the population. The survey also found that

Many mainline Protestant groups are riven by conflict over how they should interpret what the Bible says about gay relationships, salvation and other issues.

(…)

Traditional organized religion seems to be playing less of part in people’s lives, as well, with 27 percent of respondents saying they did not want a religious funeral and 30% of married couples stating they did not have a religious wedding ceremony.

There has a rise in the influence churches that either don’t belong to a denomination or play down their membership in a religious group, while about 12 percent of respondents believe in a higher power but not the personal God at the core of monotheistic faiths.

Go on, Republicans, keep on pushing that old-time religion – America is moving on.

My only worry is that the fundie bloc might shrink so far by 2012 that a guaranteed-to-lose religious nut won’t even be able to get nominated.

1 comment March 9th, 2009 at 11:26am Posted by Eli