Can a "rally" save Romney in OH?

The current delusion from conservatives is that, after the nomination, Republicans will "rally" to their nominee and provide the edge needed for a Romney victory. 

I'm going to examine the recent polling of one swing State and determine how realistic this "rally" scenario really is. 

Quinnipiac polled OH (1246 RV, ±2.8% MoE, 3/20 - 3/26) and found Obama leading 47/41. The survey's demographics are here. The cross-tabs are here. 

The weighted numbers from the sample show 29% self-identify as Republicans. These Republicans break 83/7 for Romney when matched up against Obama. Beyond that, 4% "don't know", 2% "won't vote", and 3% will vote for "someone else". 

Let's assume that the 7% of Republicans saying they will vote for Obama flip to Romney, and that all 4% undecided Republicans also rally to Romney. This is 11% of the Republicans. 11% of 29% is a whopping 3.2% of the general electorate. Obama leads by six. 

This, then, is the conclusion: if every Republican in Ohio flips to Romney, and actually turns out to vote, Obama would still win the state by about three points. There is about 5% margin of error (MoE) in the Republican-only sample, which could go either way. The best-case scenario is that a Republican "rally" could put Romney ahead by two points, and that's stretching at the limits of reality here. 

Whatever it would take to rally every Republican would probably alienate Independent voters (33% of the sample). Even a five-point gain for Obama among Independents would make the race a virtual toss-up, and that would occur if half of the undecided Independents voted for Obama. If Obama won over the 5% of undecided Democrats (33% of the sample), that would also make the race a virtual toss-up. Again, this is taking into account the unrealistic assumption that all of the poll's margin of error falls to Romney's advantage. If only half of the MoE falls on Romney's side, then Obama narrowly wins.

Romney fails to win a majority of white voters (45/41), with 7% undecided. With the white vote as 83% of the sample, Romney would gain 5.8% of the general electorate if he could pick up every undecided white voter. This would make the race a toss-up. He would need the MoE of 2.98% to actually pull ahead, but it would be a narrow victory.

A Republican "rally" could make OH a "toss-up" at best, and that's a coin flip that Romney cannot afford to lose. Obama, on the other hand, can afford to lose it and pick up those electoral votes in other States.

Can a "rally" save Romney in FL?

The current delusion from conservatives is that, after the nomination, Republicans will "rally" to their nominee and provide the edge needed for a Romney victory. 

I'm going to examine the recent polling of one swing State and determine how realistic this "rally" scenario really is. 

Quinnipiac polled FL (1228 RV, ±2.8% MoE, 3/20 - 3/26) and found Obama leading 49/42. The survey's demographics are here. The cross-tabs are here. 

The weighted numbers from the sample show 29% self-identify as Republicans. These Republicans break 87/7 for Romney when matched up against Obama. Beyond that, 4% "don't know", 1% "won't vote", and 1% will vote for "someone else". 

Let's assume that the 7% of Republicans saying they will vote for Obama flip to Romney, and that all 4% undecided Republicans also rally to Romney. This is 11% of the Republicans. 11% of 29% is a whopping 3.2% of the general electorate. Obama leads by seven. 

This, then, is the conclusion: if every Republican in Florida flips to Romney, and actually turns out to vote, Obama would still win the state by about four points. There is about 5% margin of error (MoE) in the Republican-only sample, which could go either way. The best-case scenario is that a Republican "rally" could put Romney ahead by one point, and that's stretching at the limits of reality here. 

Whatever it would take to rally every Republican would probably alienate Independent voters (33% of the sample). Even a five-point gain for Obama among Independents would wipe out that one-point Romney lead. If Obama won over the 4% of undecided Democrats (33% of the sample), that would also wipe out Romney's best-case lead. 

Romney wins only a slim majority of white voters (51/38), with 6% undecided. With the white vote as 71% of the sample, Romney would gain 4.3% of the general electorate if he could pick up every undecided white voter. He would need the MoE of 3.1% to actually pull ahead, and it would be less than a single-point lead. 

A Republican "rally" could make FL a "toss-up" at best, and that's a coin flip that Romney cannot afford to lose. Obama, on the other hand, can afford to lose it and pick up those electoral votes in other States.

Charlie Cook says Romney losing Independents

Charlie Cook, in his National Journal column, once again sounds the alarm over Romney:

At the start of this campaign, most independent voters, who generally follow politics less avidly than partisans do, saw Romney as something of a blank slate. Now, poll after poll shows that his numbers among independents have taken a beating. In an ABC News/Washington Post national survey earlier this month, Romney had a healthy 60 percent favorable and 29 percent unfavorable rating among Republicans. Among independents, it was 32 percent favorable and 48 percent unfavorable. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll among Republicans, 58 percent had a positive view of Romney, with 23 percent neutral and 18 percent negative. But among all voters, it was 28 percent positive, 28 percent neutral, and 39 percent negative. When this happens to the most “electable” candidate, it is not good for the party.

 Isn't this what I've been saying?

This year, it seems that Republicans have become self-absorbed and obsessed with their conservative base. They seem unable to acknowledge or unwilling to care that the rest of the electorate is watching and getting turned off by overheated rhetoric almost guaranteed to alienate all but the most conservative voters.

Cook, of course, has the obligatory remarks that Obama isn't a lock for re-election. Mostly, it's about the President's low approval numbers. He completely ignores that the Republican candidates are less popular, though. And he also seems to be secretly hoping for some kind of disaster that will hurt Obama:

There are so many land mines between now and Election Day for Obama: Iran and Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East; the impact of Middle East troubles on oil and gasoline prices; the sovereign-debt crisis and recession in Europe; a global economic slowdown; and the possible collapse of a European financial institution or two. But when you look at what is happening on the Republicans’ side, you kind of wonder whether they want to win or are happier just fighting among themselves.

Well, it is a National Journal article, you know.

Assuming Romney is the nominee, which Cook seems to take as fact, the more interesting question is whether the Republican base will allow him to move back toward the centre in the general election race. McCain was basically pushed further to the Right after winning the nomination. With the GOP believing its own spin that they are the majority, it could very well be that Romney will be forced to do the same thing in order to keep that base "energised". 

It might also be instructive to look again at Cook's February column where he voices similar doubts. Nothing has changed since he voiced those warnings. But, really, who in the Party has the ability to change course at this point? Nobody. The wingnut base is driving the car, and they aren't listening to anyone else.

Cook Report 3/8

The latest House Race Chart from Charlie Cook is up. Here are the changes:

• NY-22 has dropped off the radar. On 3/5 it was "Likely Democratic". This means that the seat isn't even in slight jeopardy.
• NY-26 moved downward to "Democratic Toss-up", while NY-25 moved from "Republican Toss-up" to "Lean Democratic".
• AR-4 has moved from "Lean Republican" to "Likely Republican".
• NY-19 and NY-20 have moved downward from "Likely Republican" to "Lean Republican".
• MI-3 is now "Likely Republican", indicating a slight drop from safe.

Chip Cravaack (MN-8) is still deemed a  "Republican Toss-up", and John Kline (MN-2) is still deemed "Likely Republican". Collin Peterson (MN-7) is still considered to be "Likely Democratic". Bachmann (MN-6) and Walz (MN-1) aren't listed, which means that their seats are considered safe. 

Walz's case is particularly interesting, since the MN GOP is involved in a contested primary race over who will get the chance to lose in 2012. Mike Parry, who has important positions in the Republican-controlled MN Senate, is vying with evangelist retread Allen Quist for the seat. 

Quist lost his race for Governor several years ago, and usually that marks one as a permanent loser in the MN GOP. Now, with the evangelicals having successfully taken over the MN GOP, Quist is getting a second chance due to his evangelical cred. For Quist, it's a last chance. 

Parry, however, has a lot to lose. Having won a special election against the execrable Sen. Dick Day, he won a full MN Senate term in 2010 - 54/46. It would be really nice to see Parry lose the race and become marked as a loser by his own Party. I am really hoping that Parry wins the primary, because the MN GOP doesn't seem to have any money to spend on campaigns, and the evangelicals have been very stingy with their money of late. All of the evangelical money seems to be going into the campaign for the Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, with actual races left as an afterthought. 

If Quist wins the primary (and goes on to lose the race for the seat), it will be a huge warning signal that the evangelical Party takeover has big negative electoral consequences. I would think that the DFL would like the MN GOP to continue down the "social conservative " road. So, if Parry wins (and goes on to lose the race for the seat), the evangelicals can scream that their guy would have won. It would strengthen their hold on the Party, which is good for the DFL. And Parry's career would take a permanent hit, which is just a bonus for the DFL.

Rising gas prices not a winning issue for Republicans

This week's DKos/SEIU poll was released. The pollster is PPP (1000 RV, MoE ±3.1%, 2/23 - 2/26). 

Republicans have been hoping that higher gas prices will affect Obama's job approval negatively. The results of this poll, however, strongly indicate that the public blames Congress much more for this situation. Even worse, among those who blame Congress, Republicans get most of the blame from a wide variety of demographics.

On this question: 

Who do you think has more responsibility for the current price of gas: Congress or President Obama?

46% (a plurality) say Congress has more responsibility for higher gas prices, compared to only 28% who say that Obama does. That's among all registered voters nationally. Let's dig down into those numbers:

• A plurality of both men and women pin the blame on Congress; 41% and 50% respectively.
• 45% (a plurality) of Independent voters blame Congress, while only 21% blame the President.
• 56% of moderates (a majority) blame Congress; 16% blame Obama.
• Hispanics say Congress is more responsible for gas prices: 49% compared to 22% blaming Obama.
• A plurality of all four regions (South, West, Midwest, Northeast) name Congress as the one with the most influence over gas prices.
• White voters name Congress - 40% - compared to 34% who name the President.

The only demographics who blame the President more than Congress are the ones pushing the narrative: Republicans, Tea Party members, and conservatives. In other words, this whole thing doesn't draw any new voters. It only sounds convincing to the core of the Republican base. 

So, Congress is seen by roughly half of the nation's voters as being more responsible for gas prices. It must be those Democrats in Congress who get the blame, then. Right? 

Wrong. 

On this question:

(Follow-up to those who pick Congress:) Do you think the Democrats or Republicans in Congress have more responsibility for the current price of gas?

A majority (of the 46% who blame Congress for higher gas prices) blame the Republicans.

51% of the nation's registered voters (who assign blame to Congress) say that the Republicans are the ones with responsibility for gas prices.

	Democrats	Republicans	Both equally	Not sure
All	16	51	28	4
Women	13	56	26	5
Men	21	45	31	3
Democrat	3	65	27	5
Republican	51	15	29	5
Independent/Other	19	48	31	2

 Even 36% of conservatives blame the Republicans, compared to 39% who blame the Democrats.

A plurality of every age group blames the Republicans, as does all four regions. A plurality of every income demographic blames the Republicans, as do whites and Hispanics.

It looks as if the Republicans would be the biggest victims of this narrative.

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


  
 

Charlie Cook has a few doubts

Noted political analyst Charlie Cook took a cautionary tone in his latest National Journal column:

But now I wonder whether the economy will drive this election to the usual extent—or to the extent I had thought. More specifically, will the Republican Party nominate a candidate who can credibly compete for the independent voters whose support is so important in general elections? 

Independents represented 29 percent of the electorate in 2008. In last year's combined Gallup polls, though, they were 40 percent—a record high. In 2000, Republican George W. Bush won the independent vote by 2 percentage points over Democrat Al Gore but narrowly lost the overall popular vote. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry actually carried independents by 1 point but lost the national popular vote by 3 points. The winner of the independent vote doesn’t necessarily win the general election. But a candidate has to be very competitive among independents to have a chance to win. In 2008, the GOP’s John McCain lost the independent vote by 8 percentage points and the election by 7 points.

Both Republican candidates are concentrating on winning the Republican base right now. That's what candidates do in a primary campaign, of course. But the danger is that the Party is being locked into positions and rhetoric that could be highly damaging to voters outside of the reliable Republican base in a general election.

Cook is one of those analysts who seems to default to favouring Republicans. When he starts expressing doubts, people on the Right usually listen. It will be interesting to see the reaction among conservatives to these remarks: 

Simply put, the passion and energy of the Republican Party today may well fail to produce a nominee with a decent chance of winning in November. My assumption was that Romney would be the nominee and would make a good run. Now, I have begun to doubt both propositions. His odds of winning the nomination are growing longer. And even if he does, he has twisted and turned himself into a human pretzel. I’m not sure how electable he is. The alternatives, however, seem even less so.

 So, yeah, keep pushing "social conservative" issues. Keep making crazy statements and spinning scary scenarios that everyone outside of the base just rolls their eyes at. Keep telling us that the President is a Muslim who is Constitutionally unfit for office, and who is at war with (your narrow version of) Christianity. Above all, continue with your arrogant assumption that Obama is a hated figure that only a tiny minority of "far Left" die-hards would vote for. You Republicans have been telling the country that conservatives are the majority, and that the more conservative a candidate is, the more likely they are to win. While you're at it, maybe bring out Sarah Palin a lot more often. Everyone loves her and listens to what she has to say, right?

PPP: Obama tied in AZ

PPP just released a poll (743 RV, MoE ±3.6%, 2/17 - 2/19) of Arizona that shows Obama tied with Romney, and behind Santorum by only a single point.

                        

Romney led the president by seven points (49-42) when PPP last polled the state in November. His personal image continues to take a hit as the primary battle wages on. 56% of Arizonans see him unfavorably and only 35% favorably; previously, it was 51-38. Santorum was not tested then, but he stands at 39-52 now.

Arizona is another "must win" State for the Republican Party, with 11 EV. Missouri (10 EV) was also recently polled by PPP as a toss-up, and it is also a "must win" State. While it's unlikely that Obama would actually carry these two States, Republicans will be forced to compete for them and cannot afford to alienate voters outside of their base.

The highlights of this poll are as follows: 

• Romney has lousy "favourables" with moderates, breaking a negative 28/60. Not surprisingly, he loses moderates 63/32 in a match-up with Obama. A Santorum match-up produces a similar gap: 64/26. 
• Romney washes out in the gender gap in a match-up with Obama. He loses women by 6, and wins men by 7. 
• Obama prevails with Independent voters in a match-up with both Romney and Santorum. Romney loses this group by 14 (52/38), and Santorum also by 14 (53/39). Keep running with those "social conservative" issues, GOP! 
• Romney loses Hispanic voters by 31% (64/33) in a match-up, and scores only a bare majority of white voters (51/42). Santorum does only marginally better in both categories. 
• Obama wins a majority of voters under the age of 45 in a match-up with either Romney or Santorum. Either Republican only wins a majority with voters over 65 in age. This does not bode well for Arizona's future "red State" status. 

PPP's Tom Jensen sums up these results: 

In the end I doubt Obama would be able to beat Romney in Arizona. He's getting 16% of the Republican vote right now and that seems unlikely to hold once the GOP gets unified around its nominee. But the fact that we're even talking about Arizona as potentially being on the board right now is a big a shift from where we were a couple months ago.

Gallup: Republican candidates are more unpopular than Obama

An interesting survey release from Gallup today: "Obama's Favorable Rating Higher Than GOP Candidates".

These ratings are from a Feb. 16-19 USA Today/Gallup poll and reflect a political landscape in which no more than half of Americans give any of these presidential contenders a positive rating.

 We often hear (e.g. Selzer) that Obama has lower favourable ratings than other Presidents at this stage of the election cycle. It's interesting to see that this year's Republican candidates are also much more unpopular than other years:

GOP Contenders Less Favorably Positioned Than in Previous Elections
This year's Republican presidential campaign has unfolded in a different fashion than previous years in which non-incumbent Republicans have run for their party's nomination. By February 2008 and February 2000, for example, the eventual GOP nominee was pretty well known. This year, the nominee won't be settled until after February. Perhaps as a result of these different timelines, none of the four Republican presidential contenders currently has an image as positive as those of previous non-incumbent GOP candidates in February of the election year. John McCain's national favorable rating was 56% in February 2008, George W. Bush's was 58% in 2000, and Bob Dole's was 49% in 1996.

The current Republican candidates are, at best, 17 points below the last Republican candidate -- who lost.

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 2/17, doubles down on Catholic poll

Another day, another Rasmussen tracker showing Obama ahead - but within the margin of error (MoE). Plenty of room for Ras to wiggle around, just the way he likes it.

In a potential Election 2012 matchup, the president posts a 48% to 42% lead over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.  If former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads 47% to 41%.

A six-point lead for Obama over either Republican front-runner looks good, but the MoE is 3 points on either side: take 3 points off Obama and add three points to Romney / Santorum, and you get an even break. Of course, this would mean that Rasmussen's sampling, "likely voter" screen, and 'random' panel are heavily skewed toward Republicans. Nobody that still believes in Rasmussen would care about that, though. And, by keeping the level of "undecideds" well above the MoE and the lead, Rasmussen allows plenty of room for his "things changed" moments.

But if we compare apples-to-apples, this tracker shows how flimsy the Republican narrative really is. Let's look at Rasmussen's own party ID (PID) breakdown:

Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 34.7% Republicans, 33.6% Democrats, and 31.8% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly larger advantage for the Republicans.

Okay, Ras doesn't say how large the "slightly larger advantage" is for Republicans is in his LV screen. Let's assume 2%, which is probably generous.

Romney's 42% subtracted from Rasmussen's figures for self-identified Republicans (adjusted for his LV screen) is 5.3%. That means that Romney is currently drawing a bit over 5% outside of his Party.

Obama's 48% subtracted from Rasmussen's 33.6% figure for self-identified Democrats is 14.4%. Remember, these are Rasmussen's "likely voters", so (if you take Rasmussen seriously) you can't say that those Obama supporters won't turn out. That means that Obama is more likely (right now) to win over Independents.

Obama also is drawing 48% job performance approval, strongly suggesting that his support in the match-up is firm. Again, these are "likely voters", so you can't claim that those who only "somewhat approve" of Obama won't turn out.

Romney's 42% contrasts with Rasmussen's 52% disapproval of Obama. This means that 10% of those who disapprove of Obama aren't currently willing to commit to the Republicans. In fact, Romney's 42% split is not much larger than the 40% that Rasmussen shows as "Strong Disapproval" of Obama.

For a Party that seems to be relying on a national mood of "Anybody But Obama", this doesn't look very good. Likely voters that disapprove of Obama aren't moving toward "anybody" but him. If Obama's "Strong Approval" is at 26%, what does it say when he draws 48% in a match-up? Obama draws 22% outside of his strong supporters, and Romney draws only 2% outside of Obama's strongest detractors.

Again, these are "likely voters". Doesn't his show how meaningless the entire "Strong" approval/disapproval really is? You can't say that only 26% of voters will actually turn out for Obama, and simultaneously say that 48% of likely voters will break for him. Either the value of "Strong Approval" is highly over-rated, or Rasmussen's "likely voter" screen needs to filter out 20%+ more people.

These extrapolations all involve Rasmussen's own numbers. They seem to indict the premise that Rasmussen's "likely voter" screen is built on: that Democrats won't vote. And it shows that Obama's solid base is 8 points higher than the Republicans' solid base. This does not support a narrative of an unpopular President that only draws his most ardent supporters to the polls.

In further Rasmussen stupidity, Scotty has doubled down on his previous survey results indicating that that the "religious freedom" (contraception) issue will cost Obama Catholic support.

In his 2/14 poll, Rasmussen says this:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of likely Catholic voters nationwide at least somewhat disapprove of the president’s job performance, while 40% at least somewhat approve. But the passion’s on the side of those who don’t like the job he’s doing: 44% Strongly Disapprove versus 19% who Strongly Approve.

Okay, so we see the "strong" approve / disapprove issue being pulled out again. But we are already dealing with "likely voters" here. Who cares about "the passion"? You can't vote with an exclamation point.

But how does this poll show that the White House position on the birth control controversy has cost Obama votes with Catholics? Rasmussen himself concludes:

While the president’s overall job approval ratings have improved over the past couple of months, they have remained steady among Catholics.

"Remained steady"? So did Catholic support drop off? No. 

But further:

Fifty-four percent (54%) of Catholics voted for Obama in November 2008. However, Republican hopeful Mitt Romney currently leads the president among Catholic voters by a 52% to 35% margin.

So can an issue that only appeared two weeks ago (at best) be ascribed to a drop over nearly four years? And Romney leaves 7% of those "disapproving" Catholics on the table in a match-up with Obama (59-52). Hell, Obama's even drawing 16% above his "strong approval" in a match-up (35-19). Even if you take this poll seriously, it doesn't show any drop in support due to the recent controversy.

And should we even take this poll seriously? Other pollsters dramatically differ with Rasmussen on the issue:

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

Want more dumb from Rasmussen? Look at this:

Sixty-one percent (61%) of Evangelical Christians and 52% of other Protestants also at least somewhat disapprove of the job Obama is doing in the White House.

 Wow, the Republican base doesn't like Obama! Shocking news. This is the usual desperate spin from the Right that we saw in 2008: Republicans won't vote for Obama, so he can't win. And, at the time of this survey, Rasmussen showed 50% (likely voters, mind you) at least "somewhat approving" of Obama. That kind of puts the "faith gap" numbers into perspective.

This faith gap was evident in December, well before the current dispute between the Obama Administration and religious leaders. Yet while the president’s overall job approval ratings have gone up slightly in recent weeks as perceptions of the economy have begun to improve, there’s been little or no change in attitude among religious groups. 

So the people who disliked him before still don't like him, and that somehow is supposed to mean that this new position is going to cost Obama votes? At best, it shows that the Republican base is more resistant to the improvement in Obama's "favourables" than the general electorate. Big deal.

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.

PPP 2/2 poll

The latest PPP national survey for DKos/SEIU is out. Let's look at the numbers for the 2/2 poll:

•  Obama's job approval - Basically steady at 48/48 (approve/disapprove), and 4% "not sure". The last poll (1/26) showed 47/49/4. 1% is not statistically significant in this kind of MoE. These aren't the kind of numbers that you would expect to see for a 'hated socialist tyrant', are they?
• Generic Congressional Ballot - Democrats are favoured 46/43 over Republicans nationally. This is a significant improvement over the previous (1/19) poll figures of 42/44. Women break for the Democrats strongly at 50/37/13, and moderates are even stronger at 57/29/15. Still think that social issues such as birth control are going swing the election? Independents improved greatly over the previous poll: from (1/19) 30/44 Republican to the current 39/42 Republican edge. Voters aged 18-29 go for Democrats 49/41/10, while those aged 65+ break even at 45/44/11. Dude, that's your base breaking even. Also your base: white voters breaking 40/50/11 for Republicans. The Midwest saw a seven-point move towards the Democrats over the previous poll: a Republican 38/49 to now a Democratic 45/43. The West showed no bright spot for the GOP, either: from a Republican 41/50 to the current Democrat 45/43. The South moved more Republican (44/44 to 43/48), but nobody sane is expecting Democrats to pick up any seats in the South. Hispanics are are at a very strong 58/30/12 Democratic break, while those earning over $100k/yr simply break even with those 'Marxist' Democrats at 46/47/7. The volatile 30-45 age demographic also moved from a Republican 39/42 to an even 44/44. Those outside of the Tea Party are strongly favouring Democrats at 68/21/11. The Tea Party was 29% of the sample, and you can't win with that.
• Party Favourables - Among all voters, Congressional Democrats now are at 33/58/9 (approve/disapprove/not sure). Compare that to the Congressional Republicans at 26/65/9, and tell me how that Tea Party "wave" is now perceived by "The People". Congressional Democrats stayed steady with white voters, as did Congressional Republicans (dropping an insignificant 2 points approval, but gaining 5 points of disapproval). Hispanic voters largely break even on approval for Congressional Democrats (43/45/13), while they loathe Congressional Republicans (28/56/15). Voters with incomes over $100k like the Democrats somewhat better: 32/61/6 over Congressional Republicans' 24/69/7, but the numbers are pretty bad for both. Worst for Republicans is that self-identified Tea Party voters only narrowly approve of Congressional Republicans by 48/44/8. That's your base, Republican wingnuts! Non-Tea Party voters have a positive view of Congressional Democrats by 48/41/11. Voters over the age of 65 have a dim view of Congressional Republicans (24/67), and only a marginally better view of Congressional Democrats (31/55).

Let's not forget this nugget:

Which of the Republican candidates for President do you think is the most genuine: Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum?

	Newt Gingrich	Ron Paul	Mitt Romney	Rick Santorum	Not sure
All	13	25	19	21	22
Women	13	19	20	20	28
Men	14	31	19	21	16
Democrat	9	26	16	11	39
Republican	23	15	25	29	8
Independent/Other	9	36	17	24	15

 Not very good numbers for Romney or Santorum.

 Wondering why Palin's endorsement of Gingrich meant absolutely nothing in the recent caucuses? Just look at this:

Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin, or would it not make a difference?

	More likely	Less likely	Wouldn't make a difference	Not sure
All	14	53	29	4
Women	13	55	27	5
Men	14	50	31	4
Democrat	8	70	14	8
Republican	24	31	42	3
Independent/Other	8	55	34	2

Rasmussen finally begins state polling

Two polls so far: FL and OH. Rasmussen is already showing the obligatory narrative-bolstering rise of Santorum in these polls. Neither poll is very good ammunition for delusional wingnuts bent on disproving PPP's numbers.

Florida:

Rasmussen
2/9/12; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone

2012 President
47% Obama (D), 44% Romney (R)
47% Obama (D), 46% Santorum (R)

Ohio:

Rasmussen
2/8/12; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone

2012 President
45% Obama (D), 41% Romney (R)
44% Obama (D), 44% Santorum (R)

According to PPP's rough electoral vote analysis, Obama will win the needed 270 electoral votes (EV) if he can win either OH or FL.

The fact that you can take the same set of polls and use them to put Obama at either 337 or 255 electoral votes speaks to how up in the air this year's Presidential race is. But Obama should find this heartening- he has 255 electoral votes locked up in states where we found him with at least a 5 point average poll lead in 2011.  If he can win just one out of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina that puts him over 270.

 And now Rasmussen is showing Obama with a weasel-lead in both States, over both the "inevitable" Romney as well as the "insurgent" Santorum. Actually, Santorum only ties Obama in Ohio in Rasmussen's world. But Ohio is a must-win State for Republicans.

PPP shows Obama winning OH by six or seven points, depending on the Republican candidate.

NC is pretty much a tie as PPP polls it.

In November, PPP showed a tie in PA.

Back in January, Quinnipiac showed a tie in FL against Romney:

Quinnipiac
1/19-23/12; 1,518 registered voters, 2.5% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
Quinnipiac release
Florida
2012 President
45% Obama (D), 45% Romney (R)
49% Obama (D), 40% Santorum (R)
47% Obama (D), 39% Paul (R)
50% Obama (D), 39% Gingrich (R)

 So Obama either leads or ties in all four States, and Republicans really must win all of these toss-ups. On top of that, MO is now a toss-up, and Republicans must win that State to get 270 EV.

Of course, the wingnuts shriek, "It's only February! It can all turn around!!!!"

Okay, it could. But what is the big issue that Republicans see is going to turn the race around?

A bad economy? Hey, it's bad now, and Obama is winning. And it seems to be improving.

"Socialism"? I'm too lazy to even yawn at that one. Obama's already the biggest "socialist" EVER, if you believe wingnuts - and he's still winning.

Birth control? Really? Rasmussen is alone in showing that issue to be even marginally beneficial to the GOP.

If the 'big issue' is really just going to be that conservatives hate Obama, then the Republicans are screwed. Look, wingnuts, if someone isn't already part of your movement, they aren't particularly impressed by your opinion of the President - or much of anything, to be fair. There aren't millions of swing voters holding off their decision on who to vote for until the conservatives weigh in and tell them what to think. If the arguments and narratives that conservatives put forward haven't already worked on someone, it's unlikely these things will suddenly be effective and influential over them - and sway for them for another eight months or so. Either you believe the people who say Obama is a Muslim, or you don't. There's not a huge amount of analysis that needs to be done by the person hearing the narrative. It's about the credibility of the person telling you that Obama is a Muslim. If that same person tells you the same thing one thousand times, it doesn't become more credible; it just gets more annoying. After the past four years, it's pretty clear in the minds of the electorate what the Republican "message" is. People just don't buy the ever-shifting definitions, premises, and conclusions of that "message". So the Republicans are left with "social issues" (e.g. abortion, SSM, drug prohibition, War On Christmas, etc.).

Social issues really are only effective on the base, and those voters are already "in the bag" for whoever is the Republican nominee. Santorum is all about the social issues, so he brings no new voters to the Republican side with that strategy. In fact, he turns off Independents with that stuff. There is no way that the GOP is going to flip FIVE toss-up States with social issues.

Maybe Democrats won't vote. It doesn't look like it right now, though.

Our last national survey for Daily Kos found that 58% of Democrats were 'very excited' about voting this fall, compared to 54% of Republicans. Six months ago the figures were 48% of Democrats 'very excited' and Republicans at the same 54%. Generally you would expect voters to get more excited as the election gets nearer. That trend is occurring on the Democratic side, but not for the GOP.

Going deeper inside the numbers:
-25% of conservatives are not at all excited to vote this fall, compared to only 16% of liberals.
-The percentage of Tea Party voters 'very excited' about voting in November has declined from 73% to 62% since late July.
-The single group of voters most enthused about turning this year are African Americans, 72% of whom say they're 'very excited' to cast their ballots.