PPP: "Obama Leading Republicans Big in Michigan"

Conservatives can't seem to help themselves when it comes to misinterpreting polling results. It's far too common for them to point to primary polling as an indication of a general election outcome.

In spite of the recent 'excitement' over Santorum's rise in the primary polling for Michigan, Public Policy Polling just released new survey results that show Obama winning the State handily. (560 RV, +/- 4.14% MoE, 2/10-2/12)

                   

President Obama leads all Republican challengers in Michigan by double digits, while Republicans are suffering from high unfavorability ratings among voters. Obama leads Mitt Romney by 16 points (54-38), leads Newt Gingrich by 22 points (56-34), leads Rick Santorum by 11 points (50-39) and leads Ron Paul by 18 points (52-34). Last July, we found that Obama led Romney by just 5 points (47-42).

Obama’s job approval rating in Michigan stands at 52% approval and 44% disapproval, an improvement from last July when Obama was at 50/46. 53% of voters say that Barack Obama’s leadership has been “good for Michigan’s economy” while 41% think it’s been
bad.

Republican presidential candidates are suffering from horrific favorability ratings in Michigan – less than one-third of voters have favorable opinions of Mitt Romney (29/58), Newt Gingrich (21/66) or Ron Paul (31/54). Only Rick Santorum is liked by more than one-third of voters and disliked by less than half of voters (40/47).

While the Republican narrative is that Obama is some kind of hated figure, and "anybody" could beat him, we see that he is much more liked than any of the Republican candidates.

If the most liked Republican (Santorum) only has 40% of Michigan registered voters indicating a favourable opinion of him, what does that say about the "hated" Obama showing 52% approval? Doesn't it mean that Republicans are more "hated" than Obama? How does this support the idea that the electorate would vote for "anybody but Obama"? More importantly, how does this support the idea that voters won't turn out for the more popular Obama, but they will show up to vote for the less popular Republican?

Previously, I did a preliminary assessment of the likely electoral vote totals from States that Obama led in polling. Michigan has 17 EV, and they look even more likely to go to Obama than they did when that post was written. Obama has more than doubled his lead over the past seven months in the State. 

This poll also undermines the Republican narrative that a bad economy will hurt Obama. We have a bad economy right now, and Obama is running away with a State that was hard hit in the downturn. A slight majority of registered voters are even saying that Obama has been “good for Michigan’s economy”. Isn't it weird how the number of those disapproving of Obama's impact on the Michigan economy seems to be right around the number of those voting for and (approving of) Republican candidates? 

It also seems to dovetail with Rasmussen's perpetual 40% that "Strongly Disapprove" of Obama.

You could look at these numbers and say that Obama has a solid 40% of Michigan voters firmly against him. 

I'd concede that readily. But that number has not grown over the past seven months, while the number supporting Obama against Romney has grown... by 7 points. Obama is even over the putatively magical 50% mark when matched up with Romney in Michigan. 

Seven months ago, conservatives were pointing to the President's 5-point lead in Michigan and saying that it was within the MoE, and that it would come down as the general electorate saw more of Romney in the primary campaigns. Well, the race is no longer within the MoE, and those numbers for Romney have slightly declined, while Obama's have gone up. Are we surprised that conservatives are wrong? They are living in a bubble world in which it is still 2010. 

Let's examine the cross-tabs in this survey:

• Santorum, the 'most popular' Republican candidate, only gets a 67% favourable opinion among those who voted for McCain in 2008. That's the Republican base, folks. 
• In a match-up with Obama, Santorum only draws 78% of McCain voters, while Obama draws 82% of those who voted for him in 2008. And Santorum is the one who does the best in this metric.
• Moderates break more than 3-1 against Romney, and 60/21 against Santorum. There's that "extreme" agenda showing up again. 
• Santorum breaks positively 17 / 68 / 15 against Obama among those who self-identify as "somewhat conservative", and Santorum does the best of all the Republicans in this metric as well. Only 68% of a crucial Republican base demographic that is 21% of the electorate? Does that sound like enthusiasm?
• Obama wins women voters by a full 30% over Romney (61/31), while Santorum "only" loses women voters by 25 points. Romney breaks even with men, while Santorum carries them by a mere 5%. With males turning out to be a crucial base demographic for Republicans, this breakdown is not encouraging.
• Romney breaks strongly negative in favourable opinion with Independents (32/52), while Santorum breaks even (43/44). In match-ups with Obama, however, Obama wins Independents by 12 over Romney and six over Santorum. Favourable opinions do not seem to have a strong bearing on the match-up results here.
• Obama wins white voters by 7 points over Romney (wow!) in a match-up, while whites essentially break even with Santorum (45/43, O+2). That's another crucial Republican base demographic.
• In favourable opinion, Romney loses voters aged 65+ by 23 points (34/57), with Santorum settling for an even break at 44/42. Match-ups are different once again, though. Voters aged 65+ go for Obama over Romney by 7 points, with Santorum narrowly losing them by 4. Another crucial Republican demographic fails to line up with the Party.
• Obama strongly prevails in match-ups with the 18-29 age demographic. He beats both Santorum and Romney by at least 2-1. Romney loses these voters 66/26, and Santorum loses them 60/30. Ron Paul, with his much flaunted "youth vote appeal" loses this age group 62/26 over Obama.

 With Republican candidates showing relatively poorly with their own base in these match-ups, it really shows the inherent weakness in trying to run a scare campaign against Obama. We've already had at least four years (including the 2008 campaign) of virtually non-stop fear-mongering by the Right against the President. How will more of the same turn the tide? Republicans have a solid base of 40% right now, and they can't win with that. Making that solid 40% even more solid isn't going to do them any good. 

At least in Michigan, it seems clear that Obama isn't despised, he isn't scary, and he isn't a "failed President". These are the points most likely to be hammered on in the Republican primary, and they seem to only resonate with that 40% Republican base.

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


  
 

Ras Trax 2/14, PPP national

Today's journey into the world of Rasmussen brings us the hint of old Scotty's "things changed" narrative. He seems to be insinuating that Romney's negative campaigning in FL is the "event" that "changed" the race. In Rasmussen's (fixed and bogus) polling, Romney was tied before FL. Now he is seven points down on Obama. Santorum, in yet another dizzying shift, is down nine in a match-up with Obama. Weird how Santorum was a point ahead of the President (in Rasmussen's fixed figures) when it was convenient to boost Santorum's "electability" narrative. It's also strange how Romney showed a six-point lead in December (in Rasmussen's fixed figures), but now is behind by seven in the same match-up against the President.

In a potential Election 2012 matchup, the president posts a 49% to 42% lead over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.  The numbers are very similar if former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee. In that case, the president leads 49% to 41%. Among unaffiliated voters, the president leads Romney by 10 and Santorum by 16.

One week before the Florida primary, Romney and Obama were tied. In the week leading up to that event, Romney fell behind by margins ranging from two to six points. The GOP hopeful has fallen further behind since that time. Over the past week, he has trailed the president by margins ranging from four to ten points (see tracking history for all candidates).

Overall, 51% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Forty-seven percent (47%) at least somewhat disapprove. 

Also, Obama is back above 50% in approval, which is also strange. Rasmussen just told us that 50% of likely voters were pissed off at Obama over the Catholic / birth control issue.

Gallup just released a poll that says even Catholics themselves aren't that upset about the issue: 

              

PRINCETON, NJ -- Catholics' views of President Obama were little changed during a week in which the administration battled publicly with Catholic leaders over whether church-affiliated employers should have to pay for contraception as part of their employees' health plans. An average of 46% of Catholics approved of the job Obama was doing as president last week, compared with 49% the prior week, a change within the margin of sampling error.

And the latest CBS/NYT poll fails to back up old Scotty Rasmussen:

                          

The number is similar among self-professed Catholics surveyed: 61 percent said they support the Obama administration's rule, while 32 percent oppose it.

Sounds like a losing issue for Republicans. PPP also polled the issue, and didn't find Rasmussen's 50% opposed. Oh, yeah: "likely voters". Sure. 

Also in polling, PPP released their new national survey. (1200 RV, 2/9-2/12, MoE +/- 2.8%)

Romney trails 49-42, down two points from 49-44 last month. Santorum has improved three points on the margin from a 50-42 deficit to only 49-44 now. President Obama has inched up three points versus Ron Paul (from 47-42 to 49-41), and five over Newt Gingrich (from 49-42 to 52-40). Obama leads Paul by one, Santorum by four, Romney by nine, and Gingrich by 19 points with independents. Santorum is the strongest of the Republicans with the GOP, but still loses 12% of them to Obama, while Obama cedes only 8-11% of his party versus any opponent.

Q13 Do you think the economy is improving, getting
worse, or staying about the same?
Improving........................................................ 41%
Getting worse.................................................. 31%
Staying about the same .................................. 27%
Not sure .......................................................... 1%

•  In a match-up with Obama, Santorum loses females 53/40 and breaks even with men 46/48. Romney is pretty much the same, but Obama edges out men 46/43 in that case.
• Gender seems to make no difference on the question about the economy improving.
• Ron Paul wins the white vote 48/40/12 in a match-up with Obama. Romney wins them 50/41/9. Santorum does best with whites: 52/41/ 7. That's getting into interesting territory with Santorum. If he pulls half of the undecided whites, he moves up to nearly 55%. This is what McCain got, but it's still higher than I would like to see.
• Paul loses the 18-29 demographic to Obama 56/35/10. Even if he wins all of the undecideds, he loses that age group. So much for the Paul "youth vote" narrative. Romney does even worse with the demographic: 59/29/13. And Santorum is dismal at 63/29/8.
• In a match-up with Obama, Santorum wins the 65+ age demographic by eight: 42/50/8. Romney does a bit worse at 43/46/11.

We can only wonder if Santorum's numbers will go down as voters become more familiar with him. 

Q4 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of Rick Santorum?
Favorable........................................................ 39%
Unfavorable .................................................... 46%
Not sure .......................................................... 15%

Ras Trax 2/13, Pew sees Romney drop

Eight point leads nationally for Obama over both Santorum and Romney in today's Rasmussen daily tracking poll. This poll period is outside of the caucus wins that Santorum had 2/7. It's somewhat humorous that Rasmussen points out the flakiness of his polling by referring to his previous ridiculous leads over Obama by other "flare candidates". Are we really supposed to believe that Santorum dropped nine points over four days in national match-ups? That Santorum lead was another of Rasmussen's phony build-ups of Romney alternatives to make them seem far more electable in a general election than they really are.

In a potential Election 2012 matchup, the president posts a 48% to 42% lead over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.  Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum trails the president by eight, 49% to 41%. 

This is the first time since February 3, shortly after the Florida primary, that Romney has been closer to the president than Santorum (see tracking history). In polling conducted February 2-3, Santorum had a one-point advantage over the president. However, he quickly fell back and has now joined Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich who led the president once in a single poll but could not sustain it.

So now Romney and Santorum are both behind by 8, with a statistically-meaningless single point difference in the numbers. And Rasmussen continues to be the joke of the polling world.

Pew released a new poll today, showing bad news for the Republicans in the Presidential race. While the main focus is on Santorum's rise against Romney, Pew also shows an eight-point lead for Obama:

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Feb. 8-12 among 1,501 adults, including 1172 registered voters and 552 Republican and Republican-leaning voters, finds that Barack Obama holds sizable leads over Santorum, Romney and Newt Gingrich in general election match-ups. Obama leads Santorum by 10 points among all registered voters (53% to 43%) and his lead over Romney is nearly as large (52% to 44%). Romney ran about even with Obama in November and mid-January.

                                       

Quite a trend there for Obama against Romney. And the new-found enthusiasm from the Republican base over Rick Santorum isn't helping him in the general election match-ups. Maybe that's because what sells big in the Republican bubble really isn't that appealing outside of the bubble. If Rasmussen is correct in his numbers (big "if"), then 35% of the electorate is Republican - and likely voters are even higher than that. Best case is that Santorum is pulling only 8% of the voters that do not already self-identify as Republicans. And Romney's only pulling 9% outside of the base - unless that 4% who "Don't Know" are all Republicans. 

So, how is Romney doing with Independent voters?

                                

                        

Romney has turned a 12-point lead with Independents into an 8-point deficit, in one quarter. And now we are going to see social conservative issues dominate the Republican primary campaign, which always turn off Independents. Both Santorum and Romney have been harsh, strident, and unequivocal in their constant denunciations of Obama - and Obama has been improving his standing.

The Republican delusion is that, once the RNC is over, the Republicans will join as one and denounce Obama with even scarier, crazier, and more vicious attacks than ever. 

And, naturally, since the nation takes the opinion of the Republican Party very seriously, the voters all gasp in horror that they ever could have considered voting for someone the Republicans hate that much. Obama loses. 

The bottom line is that everyone has heard this crap before. If you didn't believe it before, you won't believe it now. Judging by Pew's polling results, these attacks currently are believed by ...44% of the country. And that number seems to be declining. 

Maybe it's because the socialist Muslim hell that the Republicans all swore would happen, really didn't. Everything isn't nationalized, there are no FEMA "death camps", nobody is rounding up gun owners or taking their guns away, there is no hyper-inflation caused by Stimulus spending, there is no tyrannical government regulating every aspect of your life, and people aren't being forced into "collectives". Obama hasn't turned out to be dictator. 

So we've heard all of that scary crap before. The conservatives, the Tea Party, the entire wingnut radio industry, and the Republican elected officials all were completely wrong. No Apocalypse. No dictatorship. At no point did these things even threaten to be concerns, much less accurately depict the current reality. 

And Republicans are just going to recycle this same crap? "We were pretty off-base before on our scary predictions, but this time we're sure.!" Really? And this strategy has brought Obama to an 8-point lead over the Republicans, but it's gonna start working real good any day now, right? Money doesn't help when your message is the same narrative that has already been rejected.

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.