Rasmussen shifts, Republicans now "extreme"

Rasmussen's daily tracking is now showing Obama with a seven-point lead over both Romney and Santorum nationally. Again, these tracking polls are mostly worthless and serve to highlight the weaknesses in Rasmussen's methodology. Also, since Rasmussen is the preferred pollster of the Right, his results carry weight with movement conservatives. The "reality-based community" is sceptical, especially after his biased 2010 polling. That said, here are the results (edited for relevance):

In a potential Election 2012 matchup, the president posts a 48% to 41% lead over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney .
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum trails the president by the same margin, 48% to 41%.
Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance.  Forty-nine percent (49%) at least somewhat disapprove.

 Obama is still breaking even on approval, and even edging into positive territory on some days. The "Strong Disapproval" is edging back up, though down from the routine 42%+ we saw in December of last year. Its rise is probably more of an indication that Rasmussen's likely voter screen is more favourable to movement conservatives. Or, if we are to believe Rasmussen, more people hate Obama and those people are also more willing to vote for him than they were before (when they didn't hate him). 

It also means that 8% of the "likely voters" disapprove of Obama (49 minus 41 voting for the Republican), but choose to vote for him over Romney or Santorum. And this is supposed to prove that "anybody but Obama" can win a general election?

Another interesting Rasmussen result was this poll. Since Rasmussen is taken seriously by the Tea Party, conservatives, right-wing punditry, and Republican insiders, these results should make them stop and think. 

The question is this:

4* Would it be more accurate to describe the agenda of Republicans in Congress as mainstream or extreme?

And 52% (of likely voters, mind you) said that Republican agenda, which is essentially the agenda of the Tea Party, is extreme.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 35% of Likely Voters say it would be more accurate to describe the agenda of Republicans in Congress as mainstream, while 52% feel extreme is a more accurate description.  Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.  (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters nationwide was conducted on February 8-9, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

The Tea Party narrative has always been that they represent "The People", the majority, "Real" America. 

This poll shows that they are the minority. The electorate has clearly heard the message of the Tea Party and the Republicans, and they have rejected it. 35% believing in the Republican agenda is pretty close to the number that self-identify as Republicans. Rasmussen says 34.7% of the country self-identifies as Republican. Outside of the Republican base, their ideas and their theatrics aren't well-received at all. 

We've had a Tea Party-aligned House for well over a year now, and the "message" of the Tea Party has been trumpeted across the land for at least two years now. That message isn't fundamentally different from the one used against Obama in the 2008 election: redistribution of wealth, "socialism", "job creators", etc. So, really, that's about four years of exposure to the Republican "message". It isn't some "untested narrative" that might catch on with more exposure. Right now, we have a Republican primary campaign that is pushing the core values of that agenda into the spotlight on a daily basis. It's not as if the Republican narrative is a secret or unfamiliar.

Republicans fundamentally misread the results of the 2010 election. It was not an overwhelming endorsement of Tea Party ideology. It was about an alternative offered to Independent voters, who cared about jobs - not "socialism". The Republicans virtually promised that, if they were put in charge, the economy would turn around. Instead, we got the de-funding of NPR, crazy conspiracies and rants, petty obstructionism, and criticism of the President. The result is that Independents swung back to where they largely were before 2010. Those Independents are what produced the "Tea Party wave", not the reliably-Republican Tea Party voters. And those Independents overlooked your crazy stuff, not endorsed it. In the big picture, Independents pretty much break even on voting for Obama. 

But Independents really don't like social issues, and it appears that we are moving into a new phase of the Republican primaries where the Right's positions on social issues are going to be highlighted. Santorum is all about the social issues. Romney has turned into some kind of crusader against the oppression of Catholics, over contraception. Is birth-control really the hill that Republicans want to die on? It's stuff like this that reminds Independents that there's a whole lotta crazy back there behind the tax cuts and "jobs", and it's a package deal. 

On this "religious freedom" issue and its perils for Obama, a very recent PPP survey is relevant. 

Tom Jensen's post (2/10) on the poll results is very interesting: 

-Only 39% of voters support an exemption for Catholic hospitals and universities from providing the benefit, while 57% are opposed to one.

-There is a major disconnect between the leadership of the Catholic Church and rank and file Catholic voters on this issue. We did an over sample of almost 400 Catholics and found that they support the benefit overall, 53-44, and oppose an exception for Catholic hospitals and universities, 53-45. The Bishops really are not speaking for Catholics as a whole on this issue.

-Republican agitating on this issue could cause themselves trouble at the polls this year. 40% of voters say Mitt Romney's stance makes them less likely to vote for him, while only 23% consider it a positive.  With the Catholic oversample it's 46% less likely and 28% more likely. And Congressional Republicans are imperiling themselves as well. 58% of voters oppose them trying to take the benefit away, while only 33% are supportive.

Republicans will win this fall if they can convince voters that the economy stinks and it's Barack Obama's fault and putting them in power will fix the problem. If they want to make it about social issues and making it easy and affordable for women to access birth control, Democrats win.

Tom Jensen is, of course, one of the primary minds behind Public Policy Polling.

So we can see how Rasmussen could find so many people who think the Republicans are extreme, and get them past his "likely voter" screen. These conservative social positions are death for the Republicans, as well as the Tea Party. If anything, the Tea Party and the Fundamentalist evangelicals have converged and morphed into some kind of generic Obama-hating macro, virtually indistinguishable in the minds of the public. 

The same poll shows that 56% of Independents oppose Republicans in Congress trying to take away the birth control benefit. Believe me now?

Isn't it interesting how close the percentage supporting the Republican position in the PPP survey is to the number in Rasmussen's survey of those who think the Republicans are "mainstream" in their agenda? Those numbers are also close to the percentage that Rasmussen finds "Strongly Disapprove" of Obama. 39/35/39. This is the ceiling for the Republican narrative, in practical terms. Nobody new is buying in, you can only lose people and become more "pure". Beyond that ceiling is a twilight zone of uncertainty where moderation is called for. 

Again, making red States redder is not going to win an election for Republicans. The "great minds" of the Right's narrative-cobbling industry are showing division, but all signs invariably point to the right in any consensus. Romney is falling victim to the same process that McCain was subjected to. The Party chooses a "moderate" to appeal to swing voters, and then they drag that moderate into the hard right fever swamps. But in this case, there is an extra layer of stupidity: the base rejects the "moderate", starts off to the right, and moves farther right. The base isn't co-operating with the Party's desperate scheme, and the guy who is leading is the guy without the money (Santorum). The Party has only marginal leverage, and some factions see right now as the moment to "make their move" in the pecking order. 

The evangelical faction of the Right had to drop Bachmann over the "more electable" Romney. Likewise with Perry. Then it started to look like Romney was, at best, a tie with Obama. If Romney isn't a sure bet to beat Obama, then the evangelicals are going to take their chances on Santorum. They aren't going to give up another one of "their own" for the sake of "electability". 

The Tea Party faction has shown itself to be remarkably fickle, too. They didn't support Bachmann, but instead "fell in line" over the "electability issue", though not for Romney. Now, Gingrich is going down in flames. The Tea Party has to choose between Paul and Santorum. If they go with Romney, they will lose their identity and become mere footsoldiers for the Party elite. If their candidate loses, the value of maintaining their approval drops considerably. 

The Ron Paul faction is in for a rude awakening in May and June. The State Party Conventions will be held during that time, and Paul will not get delegates from the non-binding caucuses. They did the same thing in 2008; why won't they do it again? The more that the Paul faction builds its image into that of a "menace that will not be appeased", the more determined will the Party elites become to freeze them out of the process. The Party holds all of the cards. The write the rules, they enforce the rules, and they aren't particularly obliged to even listen to anyone else. They also know, quite frankly, that the faction's only alternative is to vote for Obama anyway. So fall in line or go to over the commies, Paultard.