Is Obama too liberal? Survey says "not really"

While wingnuts have devoted years to telling everyone with ears that Obama is some kind of "Far Left" Marxist figure, it might be useful to look at actual polling to see if the general electorate agrees with them on that characterization.

PPP (1000 RV, ±3.1% MoE, 3/22 - 3/25) did just that. 

Do you think Barack Obama is too liberal, too conservative, or about right?

	Too liberal	Too conservative	About right	Not sure
All	44	9	43	4
Women	42	8	46	4
Men	45	11	40	4
Democrat	15	13	71	2
Republican	77	7	12	5
Independent/Other	45	7	40	8

If you consider those who think Obama is "too conservative", a slim majority of 53% would say that Obama is not "too liberal". This holds true for both men and women. Among Independent voters, it's largely an even break of 45/47.This seems to be a Republican phenomenon.

Let's look at the racial breakdowns: 

White	49	9	37	5
African-American	18	6	72	4
Asian	40	16	35	10
Hispanic	30	12	57	1

 White voters narrowly come down on the side of "too liberal" 49/46. But, for a demographic that the GOP is relying on, those are not strong numbers. The Republican nominee has to get at least 58% of the white vote (and probably better than that) to win. McCain got 55% and lost with that. With only 49% of the white voters believing Obama is too liberal, the GOP will have to try something else to get that other 10% or so.  In fact, this same survey shows that only 51% of white voters would go with the generic Republican candidate over Obama. Consider also that Romney polls worse than the generic Republican in most surveys.

More than two-thirds of Hispanics, however, would disagree with the "too liberal" label for Obama. Only 1% are undecided about the issue, in fact. This is odd, since the GOP hopes to use social conservative issues to win over Hispanic voters.

How about the age breakdowns? Surely the elderly see Obama as a Communist radical, don't they?

18 to 29	31	19	44	6
30 to 45	46	11	38	5
46 to 65	47	6	44	3
Older than 65	44	6	45	5

Not really. A slim majority of 51% among those aged 65+ would disagree with characterising Obama as "too liberal". In fact, no age group shows a plurality disagreeing with that. 

Let's look the breakdown based on income. The wealthy must really think that Obama is a Marxist demon, right? 

Less than $30,000	46	11	36	7
$30,000 to $50,000	43	13	38	6
$50,000 to $75,000	42	9	47	3
$75,000 to $100,000	46	7	45	2
Over $100,000	36	8	52	4

 Not so much.  

60% of those with annual incomes over $100k would disagree that Obama is "too liberal". In fact, it's the people with the lowest incomes that are most likely to think of Obama as "too liberal". The plurality of everyone with an income over $30k doesn't see Obama as "too liberal".

So, it's Republicans who see Obama as "too liberal", and obviously Republicans think that everyone agrees with them. This is just more tone-deaf messaging from a Party that truly believes that the things that work on the Republican base works on the general electorate.

CNN national: Obama leads by 11

National polls are merely indicators, as the state polling is what really matters. 

By including states that aren't really in contention, national polls can give a false impression of the presidential race. For example, if a pollster did a "national" poll with 50% of the sample in solid "red" states (Rasmussen, we're looking at you), it would show the Republicans doing much better than a survey that has a more diverse demographic.

The latest release from CNN/ORC (925 RV, ±3.0% MoE, 3/24 - 3/25) shows Obama leading Romney 54/43 (O +11) in a match-up. 3% are "unsure".

Since February, Obama has gained three points and Romney has lost three points in the match-up. Since January, Obama has gained seven points and Romney has lost five points in the match-up. 


Among all adults (which includes those not registered to vote), Obama leads 56/40. Since January, Obama has gained seven and Romney has lost seven points in the match-up. 

The Economy:
Also among all adults, 29% think that Obama is "more responsible for the country's current economic problems". 56% say that "Bush and the Republicans" are more responsible. Among Independent voters in this same group (all adults), 26% blame Obama compared to 54% who blame Bush.


Support for the Tea Party is a strong break point for this question. Of those who call themselves supporters of the Tea Party, 67% blame Obama and only 12% blame Bush. For those who oppose the Tea Party, only 7% blame Obama and 85% blame Bush. Those who are neutral on the Tea Party break 25/59 on the side of blaming Bush for the current economy. 


It doesn't seem as if a poor economy would particularly benefit the Republicans in the general election, yet this is exactly what the Republicans are hoping for. 


The Parties: 
Among all adults, the Democratic Party is seen favourably by a narrow 48/43, with 6% undecided. This is modestly up from September, when the break was a negative 44/48 (6% undecided).


The Republican Party, by contrast, shows a strongly negative break of 35/58 (6% undecided). This is a decline from the previous lousy break in September of 39/54 (6% undecided). 
------------------------------------


CNN/ORC does not break down the numbers for the economy question and the Party "favourables" into registered voters. 


For comparison, PPP surveyed the "favourables" of the two Parties (1000 RV, ±3.1% MoE, 3/22 - 3/25) among registered voters:

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party?

	Favorable	Unfavorable	Not sure
All	45	47	7
Women	48	44	8
Men	43	50	7
Democrat	84	11	5
Republican	10	85	5
Independent/Other	32	53	15

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party?

	Favorable	Unfavorable	Not sure
All	31	55	14
Women	34	54	13
Men	29	56	15
Democrat	11	82	6
Republican	61	20	19
Independent/Other	21	59	20

In this case, we see that the Democratic Party is seen negatively by a narrow margin of two points (45/47) among registered voters, but slightly positively among women registered to vote. 

The Republican Party, however, shows the same dismal break among registered voters that we saw in the CNN (all adult) numbers. The number of undecided voters is higher in the RV survey, but not nearly large enough to make up for the 24% gap. 
It's interesting that men have a slightly worse opinion of the Party, when men are the demographic that Republicans are breaking even with in the match-ups. This is an indication of "soft support" among men for Republicans. They may be willing to vote for a Republican, but they don't particularly like them.

Quinnipiac: Obama leads in FL, OH, PA

In a new poll from Quinnipiac, Obama leads in three crucial swing states: FL, OH, and PA. 

The GOP cannot afford to lose two of these States, and Obama basically has the election if he wins Florida. With VA looking bad for the Republicans, and CO, NV, and NH looking close, the GOP needs to win all three of these just to stay in contention. Let's look at the results:

Florida: (1228 RV, ±2.8% MoE, 3/20 - 3/26) 49/42 (O +7)

Florida voters give Obama a split 47 - 49 percent job approval rating, and say 50 - 47 percent he deserves to be reelected.

The economy is in a recession, 68 percent of voters say, but 57 percent say it is beginning to recover. Romney would do a better job on the economy, 48 percent of voters say, while 45 percent pick the president, but Obama tops Santorum 50 - 39 percent on this issue.

Oil companies are most to blame for gas prices, 32 percent of voters say, while 23 percent blame oil-producing countries most; 18 percent blame Obama and 16 percent blame supply and demand.

Ohio:  (1246 RV, ±2.8% MoE, 3/20 - 3/26) 47/41 (O +6)

Ohio voters also give Obama a split 47 - 49 percent job approval rating, and split 48 - 48 percent on whether he deserves to be reelected.

The economy is in a recession, 68 percent of voters say, but 58 percent say it is beginning to recover. Voters split 45 - 45 percent on whether Obama or Romney would do a better job on the economy, but Obama tops Santorum 48 - 41 percent on this issue.

Oil companies are most to blame for gas prices, 39 percent of voters say, while 19 percent blame oil-producing countries most; 18 percent blame Obama and 14 percent blame supply and demand.

Pennsylvania:  (1232 RV, ±2.8% MoE, 3/20 - 3/26) 45/42 (O +3)

Pennsylvania voters disapprove 50 - 45 percent of the job Obama is doing, still negative but his best score in recent surveys, and say 50 - 46 percent he does not deserve to be reelected.

The economy is in a recession, 65 percent of voters say, but 57 percent say it is beginning to recover. Voters say 48 - 42 percent that Romney would do a better job on the economy than Obama, but Obama tops Santorum 49 - 41 percent on this issue.

Oil companies are most to blame for gas prices, 34 percent of voters say, while 25 percent blame oil-producing countries most; 17 percent blame Obama and 15 percent blame supply and demand.

Romney's favourables are, as in other States, worse than Obama's.

FL: 41/36 (Obama 47/49)

OH: 36/47 (Obama 47/49)

PA:  37/38 (Obama 45/50)

Previous polling for FL:

• Quinnipiac (1518 RV, ±2.5% MoE, 1/19 - 1/23) 45/45 (tie)
• PPP (700 RV, ±3.7% MoE, 11/28 -12-1) 45/44 (O +1)

Previous polling for PA:

• PPP (500 RV, ±4.4% MoE, 11/17 - 11/20) 45/45 (tie)
• Susquehanna (800 RV, ±3.5% MoE, 2/2 - 2/6) 45/43 (R +2)
• Muhlenberg (625 RV, ±4% MoE, 2/15 - 2/21) 48/37 (O +13)
• Franklin & Marshall (592 RV, ±4.0% MoE, 2/14 - 2/20) 41/33 (O +8)
• Rasmussen (438 LV, ±4.5% MoE, 2/8 -2/23) 45/44 (O +1) 
• PPP (689 RV, ±3.7% MoE, 3/8/ - 3/11) 49/42 (O +7)

Previous polling for OH:

• PPP (1022 RV, ±3.1% MoE, 11/4 - 11/6) 50/41 (O +9)
• PPP (820 RV, ±3.4% MoE, 1/28 - 1/29) 49/42 (O +7)
• Marist (3079 RV, ±1.8% MoE, 2/29 - 3/2) 50/38 (O +12) 

Additionally, the PurplePoll (1424 LV, ±2.6% MoE, 3/16 - 3/19) polled a composite of NH, OH, and PA. Obama led Romney 48/43 (O +5). 

Rasmussen: Obama still leads in "Core Four"

Not that Rasmussen's polling has any particular value at this point, but I've included this poll to illustrate the conservative narrative. 

Rasmussen's latest poll of the "Core Four" States (FL, NC, VA, OH) shows Obama leading 47/44 in a match-up with Romney. 

President Obama remains slightly ahead of the Republican front-runners in combined polling of the key swing states Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. New Rasmussen Reports telephone surveying finds that Obama picks up 47% of the vote to Romney’s 44%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. That's little changed from a week ago when Obama led Romney 47% to 42%. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey of 500 Likely Voters in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia was conducted on March 24-29, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Other pollsters, not surprisingly, have shown quite different results for most of these States.

• NC: PPP  49/46 (O +3)
• VA: Marist 52/35 (O +17), PPP  48/42 (O +6), Quinnipiac 47/43 (O +4)
• OH: Marist 50/38 (O +12), PPP 49/42 (O +7), Quinnipiac 47/41 (O +6)
• FL: Quinnipiac 49/42 (O +7) 

The thing to note here is that Rasmussen is showing these four States to be within the margin of error (MoE). These are crucial States for the GOP to win. For example, if Obama wins FL (27 EV), he pretty much wins the election, and can afford to lose the other three States. Rasmussen can't cede them to Obama and still contend that Romney will win the election. Instead, he takes five entire days to poll 500 "likely voters", and comes up with results that basically say that his polling is so shoddy that it's possible Romney is tied with Obama. If you are a Republican "true believer", that's what you see when you read those numbers. If you have a strong enough imagination, you can look at those numbers and see Romney leading.

Statistically speaking, there is no real difference between results showing Obama up by four and another result showing Obama up by three. One can only wonder why Rasmussen polled these four States two weeks in a row, if it takes him five days to do each survey. Since these States are so crucial, one can also wonder why Rasmussen doesn't just poll them individually. It all comes down to giving Scotty enough room to weasel out of his own results. As we get closer to the election, Rasmussen will declare some relatively minor event to be his "things changed" moment, and his results will come into line with other pollsters. Then, post-election, he will point to these polling results within 40 days of the election to prove his 'accuracy', and ignore the previous year's results that were glaring outliers.

Marist: Obama leads by 17 in WI

One of the sad, delusional narratives that many wingnuts insist on is the idea that Republican Governors mean that a State will vote Republican in the presidential race. It's just one of the elements of the "It's still 2010!" mindset that conservatives have completely immersed themselves in. It's very easy to play this game: just pick a few solid "red" States, note that these States have Republican Governors, and it becomes 'obvious' that having a Republican Governor guarantees that a State will vote for Republican nominee. 

And this is how the wingnut commentary machine 'proves' that Wisconsin will never vote for Obama in the general election. Never mind that the State hasn't gone "red" in decades, nor that the current Republican governor is only narrowly ahead in polling of the recall election, nor that the current Republican Governor's promise of 250k new jobs is in the negative. Nope, it's still 2010, and "anybody" can beat Obama. 

When you have one side so completely invested in an alternate reality, polling becomes the only way to counter these delusions with facts. This is why conservatives hate polling; because they hate facts. To movement conservatives, facts are just beliefs that a lot of people agree on. Therefore, if conservatives believe in something, it becomes a fact. Likewise, disbelieving something means that it's no longer a fact. If this sounds an awful lot like a religion, it's because the current Republican Party operates very much like a quasi-religion. Anything can be turned into a "fact" if people believe in it - especially if "real Americans" believe in it. 

This is why conservative-leaning pollsters are settling for a tie in so many of their skewed surveys. A tie means a win in the conservative mind, because "the polls" are 'known' to be wrong, and the vast numbers of un-polled voters are already 'known' to side with them. Besides, "the polls" include Democrats, and they 'know' that Democrats don't vote. 

With that in mind, let's examine the latest Marist poll of Wisconsin (2792 RV, ±1.9% MoE, 3/26 - 3/27). What little attention the media has given to this survey has been on the subject of the primary results, which shows Romney ahead by 7 among 740 likely primary voters. Of course, since conservatives are unable to distinguish between primary polling and general election polling, this has been read as meaning that Romney will win WI over Obama by seven points. If you are one of those people, then it probably won't matter if I pull the actual results out of the actual release, because your mind is made up.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president? 

Registered Voters
Approve       50
Disapprove   40
Unsure         10
Total            100

Once again, we see that the 'hated tyrant' is in positive ground on job approval. Surely this is impossible, because Wisconsin has a Republican Governor, and it's still 2010.

If November's presidential election were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are:

Registered Voters
Barack Obama, the Democrat     52
Mitt Romney, the Republican       35
Undecided                                  13
Total                                           100 

If you are one of those people who actually believes in arithmetic, 52 minus 35 equals 17. Of course, that would indicate that Romney is losing to Obama by 17 points, so arithmetic is obviously part of the liberal academic conspiracy. 

Ron Paul loses WI in a match-up with Obama 51/36 (O +15). Paul doing better than Romney obviously means that Paul would 'win'. His win would just be on negative margin, of course.

Santorum comes out the strongest in a match-up with Obama, losing by only 13 points (51/38). When a double-digit loss is the best outcome in a match-up, it seems like that State is not going "red". With Santorum established as the "social conservative" candidate, let's look at how that position stacks up with voters in WI:

Which party comes closer to your views on social issues such as abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage:

Registered Voters
The Democratic party    45
The Republican party     41
Unsure                          14
Total                             100

Which political party do you think currently does a better job of appealing to people who are not among its hard-core supporters: 

Registered Voters
The Democratic party    48
The Republican party     32
Unsure                           20
Total                              100

If you read those numbers and think that focusing on the hard-core Republican base will win over the general electorate, then you are a wingnut. But let's look at the numbers for that Republican Governor, whose election surely guarantees that Wisconsin will go "red" in November:

Switching topics... Do you approve or disapprove of the job Scott Walker is doing as governor?

Registered Voters
Approve       48
Disapprove   48
Unsure          4
Total             100 

If the recall election for governor coming up in the next several months were held today, whom would you support:

Registered Voters
Governor Scott Walker, the Republican   46
The Democratic candidate                       48
Undecided                                              6
Total                                                      100

Okay, so the 'hated' Obama only has 40% disapproval, but the 'popular' Walker has 48% disapproval among WI voters. And 48% of the WI voters want to remove that 'popular' Governor from office. Now, after you are finished ranting about 'union thugs', socialism, conspiracies and the like, please explain how these numbers indicate that the current Republican Governor helps the Republican Party win the presidential election in Wisconsin. 

It's also interesting that only 25% of Wisconsin's registered voters consider themselves to be supporters of the Tea Party, with only 7% describing themselves as "strong supporters". 67% of the voters say that they do not support the Tea Party. However, 54% of the likely Republican primary voters consider themselves to be supporters of the Tea Party. Does this sound like the WI Republican Party is in line with the rest of the general electorate? 

Wisconsin, and it's 10 electoral votes (EV), is considered to be part of Obama's solid 239 EV base. In 2008, Obama won the State 56/43.

Previous polling for WI:

• Rasmussen (500 LV, ±4.5% MoE, 2/27)        47/42 (O +5)
• Rasmussen (500 LV, ±4.5% MoE, 3/27)        52/41 (O +11)
• PPP (900 RV, ±3.27% MoE, 2/23 -2/26)        53/39 (O +14)
• PPP (1170 RV, ±2.9% MoE, 10/20 - 10/23)    46/43 (O +3)

 -------------------------
Pollster ratings from fivethirtyeight.com, based on 2010 elections: 

Cook Report 3/23

The latest House Race Chart from Charlie Cook is up. Let's look at the changes from 3/15: 

• NY-1 moved from "Likely Democratic" to "Lean Democratic".
• NY-23 moved from "Lean Democratic" to "Likely Republican".
• NY-4 moved from safe to "Likely Democratic".
• NY-26 moved from "Democratic Toss Up" to safe.
• NY-9 moved from "Republican Toss Up" to safe.
• NY-11 moved from safe to "Lean Republican".
• NY-13 moved from "Lean Republican" to "Republican Toss Up".
• NY-19 moved from "Lean Republican" to safe.
• NY-27 moved from safe to "Lean Republican".
• NY-2 and NY-22 moved from safe to "Likely Republican".
• NY-24 moved from "Likely Republican" to "Lean Democratic".
• NY-29 moved from "Likely Republican" to safe. 

As far as Minnesota House seats go, Chip Cravaack (MN-8) is still rated as a "Republican Toss Up", John Kline (MN-2) is still rated as "Likely Republican". Collin Peterson (MN-7) is still rated as "Likely Democratic". Bachmann (MN-6), Erik Paulsen (MN-3), Keith Ellison (MN-5), Betty McCollum (MN-4) and Walz (MN-1) are still considered safe.

Gallup: Obama job approval 48/44

Gallup has been much more pessimistic when it comes to Obama's job approval than other pollsters. Because of that, right-leaning pundits and analysts tend to rely on Gallup's figures a lot to make their cases. This might get harder, as Obama's job approvals with Gallup have been improving. Twice last week, Obama hit 49% approval - 49/44 two days straight. And the last results showed him narrowly "above water" at 47/46.

GALLUP DAILY

Mar 21-23, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change

Obama Approval

48%

Obama Disapproval

44%

 Also, let's take a look at Pollster.com's Romney vs. Obama charts, excluding Rasmussen:

Now, let's take a look at the same chart, only including Rasmussen:

See the difference that Rasmussen makes? By swamping the pool with his daily tracker, Scotty exercises undue influence over the narrative.
Rasmussen cuts Obama's support by one point, and increases Romney's support by 1.2 points.

PPP national: Obama leads Romney by 4

National polls are broad indicators; the real action is the individual States for their electoral votes (EV). The popular vote percentage really doesn't matter in itself, but at this stage of the election cycle it can give an idea how the candidates are viewed by the voters. PPP only does monthly national polling outside of their weekly DKos/SEIU surveys, so it's worth looking at them when they are released. 

The latest PPP national poll (900 RV, ±3.3% MoE, 3/15 - 3/17) shows Obama with a small, four-point lead over Romney (48-44) in a match-up. 

PPP's Tom Jensen notes:

PPP's newest national poll finds Barack Obama leading all of his potential Republican opponents, although by slightly smaller margins than he did a month ago.

In the most likely match up Obama leads Mitt Romney 48-44. In February Obama's advantage was 7 points at 49-42. The main difference is that Romney is now taking 15% of the Democratic vote, up from 10% he was getting a month ago.

When Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is included Obama's lead expands to 7 points at 46-39, with Johnson taking 7%. 39% of Johnson voters would support Romney if Johnson wasn't in the picture, while only 18% would go for Obama. I doubt Johnson will really get anywhere close to 7% in the general, but the numbers do make it clear that Obama's base is more committed to him than Romney's is and that any half serious third party bid is more likely to hurt Romney's support.

...and further:

The reason Obama continues to do so well, despite voters being split on his job
performance (48% both approving and disapproving), is that the Republicans are so
strongly disliked. Santorum is the most “popular,” but only 36% have a favorable
impression of him, and 53% an unfavorable one. That is down from 39-46 in February.
Romney sits at 33-58, Paul at 30-58, and Gingrich at 28-61. Obama ties Paul with
independents but leads Romney by six, Santorum by eight, and Gingrich by 15.

 So there is a bit of concern here. Obama's lead over Romney has dropped three points in one month. Obama's job approval is 48/48, which is better than Romney's 33/58 by a long shot. If anything, this poll shows that Paul and Santorum do better than Romney in a national match-up. 

In the match-up with Romney, Obama prevails 48/44, with 8% undecided. The largest groups of undecided voters are moderates and those describing themselves as "somewhat conservative". This last group could mean trouble for Obama, of course.

Let's examine the highlights of this survey:

• Obama's job approval with moderates is strongly positive (54/41) by 13 points. With all registered voters, only 4% are "not sure" at this point.
• Romney's "favourables" with moderates are strongly negative (31/54) by 24 points. Even among "very conservative" voters, Romney breaks negative (43/58).
• The gender gap is in full display here, with women and men each breaking by about eight points as far as Obama's job approval goes. Of course, female voters break toward approval. 
• In a match-up with Romney, we see a familiar sight. Women break strongly for Obama (51/42), while men largely split in Romney's favour (47/45). Republicans must do better than a split with male voters to compensate for the women they are losing in the Culture War, but this is not what's happening.
• Obama breaks even in job approval with Independent voters (47/47), with only 6% "not sure". While this is hardly stellar for the President, Romney's "favourables" are dismal with this group (29/58), and 13% of Independent voters are "not sure" about him.
• The match-up with Independent voters between Obama and Romney shows Romney beating his "favourables" with the group, but losing to Obama 48/42 (10% undecided). That means that 13% of Independents don't like Romney, but break for him against Obama - which is "soft support". Obama's break is right in line with his approval, indicating much more solid support. Considering this, the only slight drop of only 3% in undecided voters may indicate that Romney has a ceiling here with Independents.
• Romney is seen negatively by white voters (36/55), and he only breaks 52/39 in a match-up against Obama with these voters. Romney has to do much better than this with white voters, and the percentage of undecided voters is virtually unchanged in the match up compared with his "favourables". Again, there is a 16-point gap between white voters who like Romney, and those who break for him in a match-up. Soft support.
• Hispanic voters break strongly for Obama (64/26), as we've seen in all polling. Obama has 67% approval from Hispanics, which shows solid support. He has 3% of Hispanics that he can still pick up. 
• Among voters over 65 in age, Romney is seen quite negatively (35/54). Compare this with Obama's negative break with this same group at 45/50. In a match-up, Obama breaks even with elderly voters 47/46. Again, Romney has 11% of these voters break for him who don't like him. Soft support.
• Young voters (18-29) break for Obama by nearly 3-1 in a match-up with Romney (64/22). Obama has 69% approval with this group, so he has a potential 5% more voters to pick up. 
• No age demographic shows Romney leading by more than 5 points, and none of them show a significant difference from the overall percentage of undecided voters in that demographic. Romney's "favourables" with these age demographics are all worse than his break in the match-up, indicating soft support.

At this point, we see that Obama's supporters are solid, while Romney's are more reluctant. Yet, the right-wing narrative is that Obama's supporters won't show up to vote, while Romney's will. Those undecided in their opinion of Romney aren't breaking for him in match-ups right now, either. 

While only 39% of white voters have a favourable job approval for Obama, he picks up all 39% of them in a match-up. Likewise, with female voters, Obama has 52% job approval and he picks up 51% in a match-up. With voters over 65, he has 45% job approval, and he wins 47% in a match-up. Hispanics and voters under 29 are the same. Among voters 45-65, Obama only wins 45% job approval, but he picks up 44% of them in a match-up. 

That's solid support, as compared with Romney winning voters in match-ups who don't like him.

PurplePoll shows Obama improving and leading

The March PurplePoll (1424 LV, ±2.6% MoE, 3/16 - 3/19) is out, and it has some good news for Obama.

President Obama continues to lead in the Purple States, gaining substantial traction against Santorum over the last month.

President Obama maintains a steady advantage against both Republican challengers in the key swing states that will determine the 2012 general election. He currently leads Romney by four points (48 percent to 44 percent) and holds a majority against Rick Santorum (50 percent to 42 percent). His performance against Romney has gradually increased since the PurplePoll began tracking in September 2011.

President Obama is making strong inroads among independents. As recently as last month, the president was trailing a Republican challenger among independent voters (Santorum 44 percent, Obama 42 percent). He leads Romney by eight points (48 percent to 40 percent) and Santorum by 11 (50 percent to 39 percent) among independents in swing states.

These improvements appear to be fueled by a slowly improving political climate for the incumbent. President Obama's approval rating continues to improve, and is now close to even at 46 percent approve to 50 percent disapprove. This represents a five-point improvement over the last six months, compared to a three-point decline in disapproval.

The PurplePoll, conducted by Purple Strategies (PS), includes three Western states (CO, NV, NM), three Midwestern states (IA, MN, WI), three Rust Belt states (NH, OH, PA), and three Southern states (FL, NC, VA).  Each region has a margin of error (MoE) of less than ±4.1%, and the survey uses automated polling like PPP and Rasmussen. PS is notable because it uses a weighted sample of "likely voters", just like Rasmussen. It has become routine for Rasmussen to dismiss other polls showing Democratic candidates doing well by pointing out that the other polls use only "registered voters" (RV). Rasmussen, of course, has a secret method to determine who is likely to vote. He's been using it for two years in advance of the election, when it would seem to most sensible pollsters that it's impossible to predict who will vote until we are within 90 days of the election. For those wondering about the secret behind Rasmussen's "likely voter" screen, it's pretty simple: he believes Democrats won't vote.

Now we have a pollster doing things in largely the same manner as Rasmussen, and showing results that conflict with Scotty's narrative. 

Doug Usher, the mind behind PS, sees some faint hope for Romney:

Mitt Romney’s image has improved over the last month – 29% now have a favorable view, up from 27% in our last poll. Those with an unfavorable view ticked down by a point to 56%. While these numbers remain problematic, they could signal that he has reached a low point from which he will turn around as the primary season winds down.

A two-point improvement in Romney's favourable opinion is so small as to be statistically insignificant, and being "underwater" in opinion by 27 points is a bit more than "problematic". If Obama is supposed to be some kind of unpopular figure at 46/50, how popular can a candidate at 29/56 be? Usher is saying that, maybe, Romney has stopped getting more unpopular. Meanwhile, Obama has improved by five points over the last six months. Over the past six months, Romney has lost 3 points favourable opinion and gained 17 points of unfavourable opinion, despite an expensive ad campaign and extensive media exposure. Even with this, 14% are "not sure" about their opinion of him. Even if every single one of those "not sure" voters becomes an eventual fan of Romney, he would still be in worse shape than Obama in terms of popularity. One has to be pretty optimistic to see this trend as positive for Romney.

In the match-up with Romney, Obama has improved by 5 points in the last six months and Romney has dropped by two. Even more importantly in the larger picture, "Not sure" has dropped by three. This means that people making up their minds are moving toward Obama, not Romney. Republicans have been contending that undecided voters will gravitate to Romney as we near the election, so Obama's leads don't mean anything. We aren't seeing that happen right now. 

The Republicans have placed their hopes for victory on slender reeds indeed. First, they believe that Obama is so despised that "anybody" can beat him. Yet Obama is leading in these swing states, and their man is even more 'despised' than Obama. Second, they are confident that high gas prices will turn voters against Obama. This poll doesn't bear that out, and I'll examine it shortly. Third, they are counting on a bad economy to make Obama unacceptable and their nominee a saviour. That's not working out, either.

On gas prices, 50% of "likely voters" in the swing states don't blame Obama for the increases. 45% do blame him, and a surprisingly small 4% are "not sure". Now, Romney is only winning 40% of the "likely voters" here, so it would seem that gas prices aren't a defining issue at this point. Even in the region where Obama is losing out on this issue (the Western states), Obama still manages to break even in a match-up.

Western States:

Gas prices
Don’t blame Obama: 47%
Blame Obama, not doing enough: 49%
Not sure: 4%

2012: Obama vs. Romney
Obama: 45%
Romney: 46%
Not sure: 10%

Rust Belt: 

Gas prices
Don’t blame Obama: 51%
Blame Obama, not doing enough: 45%
Not sure: 5%

2012: Obama vs. Romney
Obama: 48%
Romney: 43%
Not sure: 8%

Southern States: 

Gas prices
Don’t blame Obama: 51%
Blame Obama, not doing enough: 46%
Not sure: 4%

2012: Obama vs. Romney
Obama: 47%
Romney: 46%
Not sure: 6%

Midwestern States:

Gas prices
Don’t blame Obama: 50%
Blame Obama, not doing enough: 46%
Not sure: 4%

2012: Obama vs. Romney
Obama: 50%
Romney: 44%
Not sure: 5%

 As far as the economy goes, it doesn't look like that is going to be a trump card for Republicans.

All 12 States: (Obama +8)

Direction of Economy
Getting better: 39%
Getting worse: 35%
Staying about the same: 24%
Not sure: 1%

Western States: (Romney +1)

Direction of Economy
Getting better: 36%
Getting worse: 38%
Staying about the same: 24%
Not sure: 2%

Rust Belt: (Obama +5)

Direction of Economy
Getting better: 36%
Getting worse: 37%
Staying about the same: 26%
Not sure: 1%

Southern States: (Obama +1)

Direction of Economy
Getting better: 40%
Getting worse: 35%
Staying about the same: 24%
Not sure: 1%

Midwestern States: (Obama +6)

Direction of Economy
Getting better: 36%
Getting worse: 38%
Staying about the same: 24%
Not sure: 2%

Again, we see a surprisingly low level of uncertainty in these numbers. In none of them do we find Romney with a substantial lead, even when opinion on the economy is pessimistic. And, where opinion on the economy is most optimistic (the Southern States), we do not see Obama with substantial leads, either. This indicates that the economy is not going to be a defining issue in the swing states. We've had a bad economy for years now, and the Republicans simply aren't seen as a credible alternative by most. Any sentiment that Republicans should be given a chance to improve the economy was expressed in 2010, and they have done nothing with that opportunity except beat up "libs" and push conservative social issues. Basically, the thing that the Republicans are hoping for here already happened in 2010, and we have only seen a shift away from them in the time since then.

So, if gas prices, the economy, and the unpopularity of Obama aren't driving voter preference, then what is? 

Conservative social issues, but not in the Republicans' favour:

Both Romney and Santorum face a significant gender gap in these critical Purple States. President Obama’s lead is substantially higher among women against both candidates. Against Romney, President Obama performs a net 10 points better among women (50% to 41%) than men (46% to 47%). In a head-to-head against Rick Santorum, the same 11-point net gap exists (52% to 39% among women, 47% to 45% among men).

By a 16-point margin, Purple State voters believe that the Democratic Party cares more about issues that are important to women (49% to 33%). As expected, the margin is slightly higher among women (20 points, 51% to 31%), but it is also robust among men (12 points, 48% to 36%). Strikingly, that gap grows to 27 points (51% to 24%) among independent voters.

Independent voters really don't like a focus on the Christian fundamentalist agenda. It's always been something unpleasant that they have tended to overlook when siding with the GOP. The nation is simply not going to go back to the 1950's social agenda, but the GOP is forced to pursue this path to secure the evangelical vote. It seems clear now, with the the Etch-A-Sketch remark, that the GOP's plan is to back off the social issues in the general election campaign, while winking to the evangelicals that they still support it. 

The evangelicals have very little to show for three decades of allying themselves with the Republican Party. Still, they will probably fall for this winking tactic once again. It's what they do. The question is whether it will work on Independent voters, who have already been taken for a ride by the Republican Party on economic issues after the 2010 elections. For this to work, the Republican candidate needs voters' trust and credibility. Unfortunately, Romney is viewed poorly and his reputation for changing positions is firmly established  in voters' minds. 

In any case, women probably will only move marginally (if at all) towards the GOP as the focus shifts away from social conservative issues. It's not just the Republican Presidential candidates pushing these things; it's the Republican Governors, right-wing media, and the Republican primary voters. The charge will continue to be led by others, even if Romney softens his tone in the general election campaign. 

In this regard, the rabid Tea Party zealots and the shrill evangelicals will turn out to be Obama's good allies as Romney tries to moderate. They will continue to undo any gains Romney may see from his false swing away from the Far Right. With the Republican base still believing it is 2010, their arrogance and vitriol will serve as a constant reminder to Independent voters as to what the Party really stands for.

In terms of electoral votes, the swing states in the Rust Belt and the South hold the greatest number of potential EV. Obama shows leads of 5 and 7 points, respectively. 

Of the Western States: CO (9), NV (6), and NM (5) add up to 20 EV. Of these, NM is already considered as solid for Obama (O +15). 

Of the Midwestern States: IA (7), MN (10), and WI (10) add up to 27 EV. Of these, MN and WI already look solid for Obama. Even Rasmussen gives Obama a five-point lead in WI. 

Of the Southern States: FL (27), NC (15), and VA (13) add up to 55 EV. Of these, VA has shown Obama leading in several polls by at least five points.

Of the Rust Belt States: NH (4), OH (20), and PA (21) add up to 45 EV. Of these, OH and PA have shown good leads for Obama - above five points - in several polls. 

That leaves 68 EV still up for grabs, as it stands now, in these swing states. If you add Romney's solid 181 EV, it leaves him with a total of 249 EV. Of course, it takes 270 EV to win. All of these "up for grabs" states are essentially a coin flip right now, which means that Romney would have to win six coin flips in a row. He would then have to flip 21 EV from a combination of states that Obama already has a decent lead in. That seems daunting, to say the least. 

Instead, the Republicans seem to be employing a strategy of making solid red states even more solid.

PPP: Obama up by 23 in MA

A new PPP survey of Massachusetts (936 RV, ±3.2% MoE, 3/16 - 3/18) shows Obama leading Romney in a match-up 58/35. 

Barack Obama has drastically improved his approval rating and performance against the Republican field in Massachusetts since last fall and now leads all Republican challengers by 23 points or more, a new poll from Public Policy Polling finds.

Obama leads Newt Gingrich by a whopping 34 points in Massachusetts, 62-28 (up from 58-31 last September); he leads Rick Santorum by 32 points, 61-29; and leads Ron Paul by 28 points, 58-30 (up from 55-30 last September). Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney performs best in a head to head matchup versus Obama but still loses by 23 points, 58-35 (down from 53-40 last September).

MA went for Obama 62/36 in 2008. PPP's sample for this poll shows:

Q12 Who did you vote for President in 2008?
John McCain................................................... 32%
Barack Obama................................................ 57%
Someone else/Don't remember ...................... 11%

This makes five points less for Obama, and four points less for McCain than the actual results. The sample narrowly leans Democratic by one point. One point in the sample cannot make up for a 23 point lead. 

Also, Obama has positive "favourables" in MA:

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of President
Barack Obama’s job performance?
Approve .......................................................... 57%
Disapprove...................................................... 38%
Not sure .......................................................... 5%

 MA has 12 EV, and is part of Obama's solid base of 239 EV.

Quinnipiac: Obama leads VA by 8

Yet another poll showing Virginia going for Obama. This time, it's Quinnipiac (1035 RV, ±3.1% MoE, 3/13 - 3/18) with Obama winning a match-up with Romney 50/42. 

"President Barack Obama has opened up some daylight in Virginia against his Republican challengers," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "His margin over Romney, in the state where Obama has been struggling after his win in 2008, compares to a slight 47 - 43 percent lead in February."

"The president's lead over Romney in Virginia is due mainly to his strong margin among women, 52 - 39 percent, but he also wins 48 percent of men to Romney's 45 percent."

Obama leads 97 - 2 percent among Democrats and gets 46 percent of independent voters to Romney's 43 percent. Romney is ahead among Republicans 84 - 6 percent.

 Previous polling for VA:

• Marist (2518 RV, ±2.0% MoE, 2/29 - 3/2) - 52/35 (O +17)
• PPP (600 RV, ±4.0 MoE, 12/11 - 12/13) 48/42 (O +6)
• Quinnipiac  (1544 RV, ±2.5% MoE, 2/1 - 2/6) 47/43 (O +4)
• Rasmussen  (500 LV, ±4.5% MoE, 2/21) 49/43 (O +6)

Meanwhile, Republicans are hanging their hat on a Roanoke College poll (607 adults, ±4.0% MoE, 2/13 -2/26) that shows a virtual tie 42/43 (R +1) with a large 16% undecided. Naturally, Republicans see the other five polls as "outliers"and this single poll as the "real" one. 

We now have a trend by the same pollster, Quinnipiac, showing Obama gaining four points in the margin over Romney since February. 

In addition, we have the latest results by the worthless Rasmussen also showing Obama with a nine-point lead over Romney in VA:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Virginia Voters finds the president leading former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by nine points - 51% to 42%. It was a six-point race a month ago – Obama 49%, Romney 43%. Four percent (4%) now prefer another candidate in the race, and four percent (4%) more are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey of 500 Likely Voters in Virginia was conducted on March 20, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

 Rasmussen also shows Obama's lead increasing since February. On top of that, the worthless Rasmussen shows Obama leading in the "Core Four" states, which includes VA:

President Obama holds modest leads over both Republican front-runners in hypothetical Election 2012 matchups in combined polling of the key swing states Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. Obama now picks up 47% of the vote to Romney’s 42% in those states. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey of 500 Likely Voters in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia was conducted on March 17-22, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

 Five points is a "modest lead" in the four most crucial States for Republicans to win, I guess. Previously, he found a four-point lead for Obama in the "Core Four", and in late February Obama was tied with Romney. So it's increasing, but "modest". 


VA is a crucial State in the election, with 13 EV. Added to Obama's base of 239 EV, it pushes him up to 252 EV. 

From there, Obama only needs 18 EV to win.

A win in OH, PA, or FL means that Obama wins the election, if VA goes to the Democrats. Obama only needs to win one, and he currently leads in two of these States. He also has a buffer of 13 EV in NC, which PPP shows him leading by 3 points, in case IA (7 EV) goes to Romney. 

Of course, FL is a toss-up. If the Republicans lose that coin flip, it's all over. Florida's 27 EV would put Obama well over 270 EV if he wins VA. Without VA, FL would bring him to 266 with just his solid base added to that. Obama would have to lose OH and PA, along with every other coin flip, to lose in that case. 

Meanwhile, Romney has a solid base of about 181 EV. He has to win CO, FL, NC, PA, and OH or he's out. That's pretty grim. 

PPP showed Romney behind by seven points in PA. Marist showed Romney losing by double digits in OH. If Romney loses in either of these States, it's over.

Quinnipiac: Obama leads by 16 in CT

Although Connecticut is a New England State, the Right read a great deal into Lieberman's election to the Senate and the 2010 elections. Some saw CT as a possible flip and a Senate pick-up. 

They, of course, were sadly mistaken. 

The new Quinnipiac poll of CT (1230 RV, ±2.4% MoE, 3/14 - 3/19) shows Obama with a strong lead and the likely Republican Senate candidate losing badly. Obama leads Romney 53/37 in a match-up, with Obama improving by 4 points since mid-September with the same pollster. On top of that, Obama has picked up five points of "favourable" opinion since mid-September, and dropped 4 points of unfavourable opinion in that same period. Romney shows negative "favourables" at 35/43, with his "unfavourable" opinion increasing by 15 points since the previous poll. 

There isn't the familiar gender gap in these numbers, either. Obama wins slim majorities of men and women in a match-up, his "favourables" are good with both genders, and Romney is viewed about as unfavourably by both genders. Obama is even picking up 19% of self-described conservatives when matched up with Romney, and he wins Independents by 11 points over Romney. 

I don't think a big Super-PAC-funded ad campaign is going to turn the tide in CT. 

McMahon, the likely Republican Senate candidate, tried a massive ad campaign in 2010 and lost. She's still seen unfavourably by voters there (40/44), including Republicans. From TPM:

McMahon suffers from a loss of support from her own base. GOP voters are a clear minority in Connecticut, but she only sees support from three quarters of them in the poll, splitting the independent vote and only around ten percent of Democrats. On the other hand, Shays shows some real strength in general election matchups: he actuals bests Bysiewicz 42 - 40, and falls to Murphy 43 - 37. Against Bysiewicz, Shays pulls 47 percent of independent voters versus 30 for the former Secretary of State and essentially splits them against Murphy.

CT has seven electoral votes (EV), and has been seen as part of Obama's solid 239 EV base by most. A win by Shays for the Senate seat wouldn't technically be a "pick-up" for the Democrats because Lieberman ostensibly caucused with the Democrats, but it would be a far more solid vote than Lieberman's. 

Overall, this poll is good news. It shows Obama increasing his popularity and his lead over the likely Republican front-runner, and it shows a Senate win for the Democrats.

Bhutan military effort in Assam shows some success

Bordering Assam, with various rebel camps of Maoist guerilla groups and separatists, Bhutan has had its hands full trying to restore security. These armed groups frequently crossed over to Bhutanese territory and established camps to avoid Indian military operations, and they are not welcome visitors. Many of these armed groups are funded, armed, and vocally supported by China in an attempt to create an insurrectionist internal front in case of a border war with India. Obviously, Bhutan faces the same threat from China, and clearing out these armed groups is in their national and security interests.

From The Times of India:

KOLKATA: Almost 10 years after joint operations along the Indo-Bhutanese border to flush out militant groups from the northeast taking shelter in the Himalayan kingdom, Bhutan is feeling confident enough again to increase its exchanges with Assam in education, health and business, Bhutan government sources said on Monday. With the improvement in the security scenario in Assam, "the confidence level has gone up," they added.

Last week, Bhutan government officials met Assam authorities in Dispur and discussed the possibility of sending students from Bhutan to medical and engineering colleges in Assam under the "foreign students quota." Initially, the possibility of sending two students to Guwahati Medical College and two to any of the government engineering colleges was discussed. Later, Bhutan could send students also to private engineering colleges in the state. But Bhutan would still like its students to be placed in places like Guwahati and Silchar, and not in upper Assam towns like Dibrugarh where the anti-talks faction of Ulfa was active.

Since the launch of "Operation Flushout" in December, 2003, in which the Royal Bhutan Army had taken a leading role in dismantling camps of Ulfa, NDFB and KLO in Bhutan, a sense of uncertainty had prevailed on the Assam-Bhutan border for fear of retaliation. Under advice of Indian authorities, all vehicles with Bhutanese registration number plates used to be escorted by Indian security force vehicles on the Indian side of the border. "Not 10, but for 20 years we did not send Bhutanese students for studying in Assam for security reasons," said a source.

Not only students, but Bhutanese nationals along the border needing medical care are now safer in crossing into Assam.

Beyond these simple exchanges, Bhutan needed to forcefully respond to the danger these Maoist groups posed after the bombings along the border last May.

KOKRAJHAR: There was panic in the Bhutanese border towns of Phuentsholing and Gelephu after two IEDs went off, injuring one person, on Sunday night. While the first bomb exploded at Phuensholling at around 10 pm, another one exploded almost two hours later near a cinema at Gelephu.

And also last October:

KOLKATA: Days before Bhutan King's wedding, twin explosions rocked Phuentsholing on Monday evening, a small town bordering Jalpaiguri district of West Bengal. Following the serial blast, state police have alerted cops in all six north Bengal district fearing further sabotage.
Locals at Jaigaon - the Indian town - yards away from Phuentsholing said that around 6 pm, they heard two huge thud within couple of minutes and people started running towards India through Bhutan gate in panic. Bhutan police and Royal Bhutanese Army took control over the explosion site soon after the incident and closed down the border gate for security reasons.

Sources said two improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were planted at the crowded market area of the town, hardly 50 meters from the border gate. "A bomb was hidden in dustbin and another was planted behind flower tubs in front of Hotel Pelzong," sources said. Intelligence officers said that low intensity IEDs were used in the explosion.

Bhutan government is yet to announce the number of the injured, but sources said among dozens of injured one is an Indian citizen. "He is a native of Jaigaon. He went inside Bhutan for some work and sustained shrapnel injuries following the blast", said BL Balia, president of Jaigaon trader's association.

Intelligence officers have reasons to believe that militant groups who are against the Bhutan monarch have planned the explosion before the king's wedding ceremony. Though intelligence officers are yet to confirm the group behind the blasts, they suspect the anti-monarchy Communist Party of Bhutan (Maoist).

Months ago, on May 23, insurgents triggered explosion at Phuentsholing and Gelephu - both border towns in Bhutan. In 2006 and 2008 similar explosion left scores injured at Phuentsholing.

Readers may need to be reminded that Bhutan has been a Constitutional Monarchy for several years now. 

Tiny, tranquil Bhutan is being forced into a war it does not want by the relentless pressure of the Chinese military and their Maoist proxies:

Over the past century Bhutan has not fought any war, and its army has remained little more than the royal bodyguard to Oxford-educated and Scot-style-kilt-wearing King Dorje Synghe Wangchuk. Although the Royal Bhutan Army was trained by India under a treaty signed in 1948 that permits India to help the country in the areas of foreign policy and defense, it has never been baptized in the blood of war. There has never been any need for a joint defense operation by Bhutan and its giant patron, and little need for India's assistance in foreign affairs, barring help for the tiny kingdom to join the United Nations. Bhutan maintained strict neutrality during the India-China War of 1962 and, to the annoyance of many in India, disarmed fleeing Indian army personnel who entered its territory.

But last weekend the long period of peace enjoyed by the Royal Bhutan Army came to an end, as 16 of its personnel sustained mild to critical injuries, against six Indian insurgents killed, while flushing them out of the dense forests astride the arterial road connecting the kingdom with India. The insurgents, under pressure from Indian security forces determined to free the sensitive northeastern part of the country from a growing rebellion that prevents development and affects trade and commerce in the tea-producing areas of Assam state, had made Bhutan their base of operations.

The king informed Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the impending operation on the night before it started and sought logistical support from India's Kolkata-based Eastern Command in the form of night-vision equipment, automatic weapons, mortars and grenades besides bulletproof jackets and jungle-warfare equipment. About 3,000 well-equipped insurgents were hiding in the Dooars foothills of Bhutan with their families, and on the first day the clean-up operation on Sunday, an estimated 50 people, including six mid-level rebel leaders, were seriously injured or believed killed.

As the Indian army sealed the border and the Royal Bhutan Army continued its pressure, however, it appeared that India was far from a solution to the insurgency in the northeast, as some of the senior leaders are believed by intelligence sources to have slipped into Bangladesh or Nepal. Bhutanese sources at the border discount the possibility of the insurgents moving to the high mountains of northern Bhutan on the grounds that it would be difficult for people used to living in the plains of Assam to live in a high-altitude environment. They would also face a food shortage in the sparsely populated northern region.

Three insurgent groups, all from Assam state, are believed to be holed up in Bhutan, where they have been extracting money from the truckers and the small business groups trading on the main road leading to the capital, Thimpu. The largest group belongs to the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA); next comes the National Democratic Front of Bodoland, mostly Bodo tribals; and the Kamtapur Liberation Organization. 

Meanwhile, China itself is building roads right up to the border of Bhutan, even making bold incursions into the country with this effort. It's no secret that these roads are for military purposes, nor is it mysterious that the Chinese military is constructing barracks in the disputed territory and moving troops in. Pressed on one side by the Chinese military, and on the other by China's well-armed proxies, Bhutan is in a dangerous situation. India already has its hands full fighting the rebel groups, and can ill afford to defend Bhutan as well.

PPP national 3/8 results, Obama up by 3

I should take some time to examine the 3/8 PPP (Dkos/SEIU) national poll. 

First, personal approval for Obama:

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama?

	Favorable	Unfavorable	Not sure
All	48	47	4
Women	54	42	4
Men	43	52	5
Democrat	86	10	5
Republican	10	88	2
Independent/Other	40	52	7

We see Obama essentially breaking even with the general electorate, while losing Independents by 12. We also see the now-familiar gender gap, with Obama coming out ahead in the net (+12 women, -9 men). 

This is a noticeable improvement over last week's breakdown (3/1):

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama?

	Favorable	Unfavorable	Not sure
All	47	49	4
Women	52	43	4
Men	41	55	4
Democrat	83	14	3
Republican	9	89	2
Independent/Other	43	49	8

 Most important is the small closing of the gender gap in Obama's favour, and a slight increase in his base support. 

Approval from moderates increased by six points from the 3/1 results, whites increased by 3, while Hispanics showed a steep 20% drop in approval while remaining in positive territory (53/36). Obama also picked up 3 points of approval in the South, and 7 points from the 18-29 age demographic.

In the generic match-up, Obama leads by 3 (49/46):

Generally speaking, if there was an election today would you vote to re-elect Barack Obama, or would you vote for his Republican opponent?

	Barack Obama	Republican opponent	Not sure
All	49	46	5
Women	56	40	4
Men	42	51	6
Democrat	87	10	4
Republican	8	87	5
Independent/Other	44	48	8

Once again, the net effect of the gender gap is positive for Obama (+16 for women, -9 for men). Democratic support is right up at the level of approval, which shows strength. Independents break more in favour of Obama than their approval would indicate, which shows weakness with those voters. Not surprisingly, Independent voters show more uncertainty than other demographics. 

Bear in mind, though, that this generic match-up represents the best-case scenario for Republicans. When it comes down to a match-up with actual, named candidates, Obama does much better.

Hispanic voters, in spite of their approval drop, still break strongly for Obama in this generic match-up (56/33). This is virtually the same as the last poll (2/23), in which Hispanics broke 59/34 in Obama's favour. 

Voters in the South moved only very slightly more toward Obama in net: 46/49 from a previous 44/50. Voters in the Midwest showed negligible change: 45/48 from 45/46.

When it comes to voting enthusiasm, the national average went up: 81% from the previous (2/23) 77%. Of that 81% who are at least "somewhat excited" to vote, 54% are "very excited". These numbers are the standards by which other demographics are judged to "above average" or not. 

Both Democratic and Republican partisans are above average in enthusiasm, but the Democrats have the advantage: 62% "very excited" to the Republicans' 57% "very excited". 

Independent voters show a depressed enthusiasm, with only 69% excited and only 35% of them "very excited" to vote. These numbers are well below the national average, though only 8% are disinterested. Women are about average at 79% (53% "very excited"), those aged 65+ are just slightly below average at 78% (50% "very excited"), and likewise for white voters at 79% excited (50% "very excited"). Men are about average at 82% (54% "very excited"). When you include the 21% of women who are "not at all excited", compared to the men's 18% "not at all excited", we see a slight advantage for the males in possible turnout at this early stage. 

The Tea Party is average in total at 81%, but show a much higher 60% who are "very excited". Those outside the Tea Party, for comparison, show an 82% enthusiasm with a lower (but still average) 53% "very excited". The Tea Party, per the demographics, is only 29% of the electorate. Those outside it are 60%, with 11% "not sure". Since you can't vote with an exclamation point, the 6% "very excited" advantage seems to wash out in proportion to the size of the Tea Party's vote. Added to that is an identical 19% "not at all excited" for both those in and out of the Tea Party, and you see that a significant number of those Tea Party members may not even turn out at all. Those "not sure" about their Tea Party affiliation break strongly for the generic Republican (62/28), but approximately one-quarter of them are uninterested in voting at this point, and those that are show only a very below-average 42% "very excited" figure. 

Moderates, too, show depressed enthusiasm. Only 78% are excited (3% below average), but more telling is that only 48% (6% below average) are "very excited" and 21% are disinterested. While this demographic breaks strongly for Obama (66/29), actual turnout may not be strong. 

In terms of actual job approval for Obama: 

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance?

	Approve	Disapprove	Not sure
All	48	49	3
Women	53	44	3
Men	43	55	2
Democrat	84	12	3
Republican	10	89	2
Independent/Other	42	56	3

Independents are breaking for Obama 6 points above their approval. There is less uncertainty about approval than there is about the choices in the match-up. 3% isn't much room for Republicans to work an effective scare campaign against Obama, nor a "failed President" narrative. The 8% of unsure Independents provides some hope for the GOP, though this is just under 2% of the electorate, and the enthusiasm of this demographic is not encouraging for such an effort.

On the recent Rush Limbaugh controversy, the poll results are not encouraging for the Republicans:

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Rush Limbaugh?

	Favorable	Unfavorable	Not sure
All	26	58	16
Women	22	61	17
Men	30	56	14
Democrat	8	83	10
Republican	52	27	21
Independent/Other	20	61	19

 If you want an issue that could potentially sway Independent voters, this is it. And Limbaugh has a lot more of the same vitriol to release at ill-timed moments.

Did you think the comments Rush Limbaugh made about Sandra Fluke last week were appropriate or inappropriate?

	Appropriate	Inappropriate	Not sure
All	16	70	14
Women	11	71	18
Men	21	70	9
Democrat	7	84	9
Republican	28	55	17
Independent/Other	14	69	17

 Not much in the way of support for the GOP's crusade. Keep digging that hole, Republicans.

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party?

	Favorable	Unfavorable	Not sure
All	31	56	12
Women	28	58	14
Men	35	55	10
Democrat	7	84	9
Republican	68	20	12
Independent/Other	19	62	19

Does this look like the nation's voters are clamouring for Republican 'solutions'?

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party?

	Favorable	Unfavorable	Not sure
All	44	47	9
Women	51	39	10
Men	38	54	9
Democrat	82	11	7
Republican	8	86	6
Independent/Other	31	51	18

 Is is pretty safe to say that The Republican Party wishes that it were as popular as those "unpopular" Democrats? Even that crucial male demographic sees the Democratic Party about as favourably as the Republicans. It also looks like it would be an easier task to swing Independents toward the Democrats than it would be to swing them toward the Republicans. And there's a lot fewer people that are "unsure" about the Democratic Party than the GOP.