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.

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.

Bolivia: aid organisations spy for U.S.

From China Daily, passed on without comment:

Bolivia accuses US of spying on L America

Updated: 2012-02-10 10:52

(Xinhua)

LA PAZ - Bolivian President Evo Morales on Thursday accused the United States of spying on his and other Latin American countries.

The Bolivian president said the spying is done under the cover of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

"I am convinced that some NGOs, especially those funded by the USAID, are the fifth column of espionage in Bolivia, not only in Bolivia, but also in all of Latin America," Morales said during a press conference in Oruro, a southwestern Bolivian city.

Morales said the United States, through the cover of development aid operations of those organizations, knows "all the details of the activities of the social sectors and union leaders" in those Latin American countries.

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.

Preliminary electoral math

Let's look at the states that Obama is expected to carry at this point and add up the electoral votes.

CA (55), OR (7), WA (11), NM (5), MN (10), MI (17), IL (21), NY (31), MA (12), VT (3), ME (4), RI (4), DC (3), MD (10), DE (3), NJ (15), IA (7), WI (10), CT (7), HI (4)

That's 239 EV right there.

Another State looks likely to go to Obama:

VA (13), with Quinnipiac showing a 4 point lead for Obama over Romney (8 points over Santorum).

This makes 252 EV.

This is a very good starting point for Obama. He only needs 18 more EV to win, according to the current outlook. Where could he get 18 more EV?

• Ohio (20 EV)

PPP's November 2011 polling shows Obama with a 9-point lead in OH.

In 2/12 polling by PPP,  Obama leads by 6 points.

Rasmussen, for what it's worth, shows Obama with a 4 point lead over Romney and tying Santorum.

• Florida (27 EV)

1/23 Quinnipiac showed a tie in FL against Romney.

12/1/11 PPP showed Obama with a 1 point lead over Romney.

• North Carolina (15 EV)

2/9/12 PPP shows Obama with a 1 point lead over Romney (2 over Santorum) in NC.

• Pennsylvania (21 EV)

11/22/11 PPP polls a tie in PA with Romney, 5 point lead against Santorum.

2/6/12 Susquehanna shows  Romney with a two-point lead, Obama beats Santorum by 4.

There is also a combination of CO (9), MO (11), NV (6), and NH (4).

For Republicans, the problem is that their really strong States don't have very many electoral votes:

WY (3), UT (5), ID (4), KS (6), AK (3), AR (6), MS (6), SC (8), WV (5), NE (5). 

These total 45 EV; not even close to CA's 55 EV.

It might look neat on a map to see large red areas, but square miles don't vote; actual people do.

At the moment, the GOP seems obsessed with making already red States even redder, but that doesn't help them at all.

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

 

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.

China pushes at border, India squirms and looks aside

I've dealt with this issue before, and the recent talks between China and India over their borders are turning out to be a joke. Apparently, India has made a grand 'concession' that Tibet is really a part of China, which settles everything. Except that China defines "Tibet" quite differently than India does. A part of (what everyone else recognises as) India is obstinately referred to as "South Tibet".

From Eurasia Review:

February 10, 2012
By Bhaskar Roy

There have been projections among some Indian experts and think tanks that a limited Chinese attack along the unresolved Sino-Indian border may be imminent. This view cannot be totally faulted. They are based on China’s aggressive official and semi-official postures and warning to India, especially on the sovereignty of Tawang, an important Buddhist pilgrim town in India’s north-east state of Arunachal Pradesh.

China claims officially the whole of Arunachal Pradesh as its territory. The official Chinese media, have started referring to Arunachal Pradesh as South Tibet. This is a very important shift in China’s nomenclature of Arunachal Pradesh. This is an effort to now make this Indian state a historical part of Tibet which China militarily occupied in 1950. With India among other countries in the world having acknowledged the original Tibet as a sovereign part of China, extension of Tibet to Arunachal Pradesh may give China an opening into its sovereignty claim on Arunachal Pradesh. Beijing believes it as another instrument to pressure India.

It is now common knowledge that China continues to support insurgent and separatist groups in north-east India.  If Tawang went to China it could garrison its troops there, ignite a major turbulence in north-east India, and roll down from Tawang to engage or cut off the Siliguri chicken-neck, preventing or slowing down Indian military movement. A success of this strategy would be disastrous for India. One can, therefore, understand China’s strong objection and criticism against India’s enhanced force deployment in north-east India. 

What is particularly galling for Indian observers is the fact that China is quietly building its military deployment in Tibet or Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) that does not appear normal. The Chinese military has constructed or upgraded five airfields in close proximity of the border from the western sector to the eastern sector. There are indications that round the year air deployment is taking place or has already taken place. In the height of winter in January this year, People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAF) conducted live fire exercises in TAR.
The railway net work in Tibet may be projected by the Chinese as for development purposes, but its military and strategic emphasis are obvious. At least one full train load of transfer of arms and ammunitions from Golmud to Lhasa has already been conducted. The next step is bring one line to Xigaze (Shigatse) near the eastern sector border, and another to the Nepal border and then on to Kathmandu.
The road infrastructure along the border on the Tibetan side is being continually upgraded, and high altitude military exercises have also been conducted. In fact, two-dimensional military preparations in TAR can be said to be in an advanced stage.

And the Chinese public is being indoctrinated with the case for war with India:

As is well known, the Chinese Communist Party and the government have kept their people starved of information on the happenings in the world. The people have been fed by the state and party controlled media, tailored to project official views and thinking. China’s 500 million netizens’ views on different countries are shaped by official media. A study made by Simon Shen, Associate Professor in the department of social sciences, Hong Kong Institute of Education (published, China Quarterly, Sept. 2001) reveals interesting insights into the minds of these netizens. One thing that emerged from Simon Shen’s three-year research was that 90 percent were hostile to India. On territorial issues, the result was “why should China negotiate with India when it is superior and can hold off India?” India is also seen as servile to the west, and also as imperialist. Over all, the views are anti-India and based very closely if not exactly to the Chinese official propaganda.

This deliberately created mind set by the Chinese authorities can be a double edged sword. While it creates support for the party and the government, at times this can also pressure the authorities to do what they may not want to do. The Sino-India border issue is one of the questions discussed by the Chinese netizens who prefer a military strike in “South Tibet”’ Arunachal Pradesh, to teach India a lesson. These views are not of the 1950s or 1960s, they are contemporary and relevant.

But we have established agreements between the two countries about the border, and China has to honour those agreements, right? Nope:

An India-China conflict can manly be visualized along the borders. This issue is just not moving forward, and China does not want to under the current bilateral agreements. The issue is that China signed an agreement at the Prime Ministerial level in 2005 that there will be no exchange of settled population areas. Since then, they have reneged on this. The recent (Jan 16-17) Senior Representative (SR) level talks on the border and other issues not only saw little progress but rather froze such meetings for some time to come. Hence, one can safely believe that the boundary talks have gone to the mode of ‘time buying’.

So Chinese citizens are ready to go to war with India, China is building the infrastructure needed to go to war in that area, and China claims an entire province as part of India.

Also, from The Daily Mail:

India has increased its troop strength in the region and has taken several measures to improve infrastructure, including border roads.
Beijing has never acknowledged the McMohan Line separating Arunachal from Tibet as the official boundary with India. New Delhi has rejected China's claims over the state.

Sounds like it's all "settled", doesn't it?

Ras: Santorum drops, Romney collapses

Rasmussen's daily tracking polls are generally worthless, and more of an indication of Scott Rasmussen's shifting biases and the uncertain Republican base than an accurate reflection of the electoral race. So, for entertainment purposes, I present the tracking poll for 2/10/12:

In a potential Election 2012 matchup, the president attracts 50% of the vote and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 40%. This is the largest lead the president has enjoyed against Romney in regular polling going back more than a year. It’s also the first time that the president has reached the 50% level of support against Romney.

Rick Santorum now trails the president by four percentage points, 46% to 42%. Rasmussen Reports will now be tracking the Obama-Santorum race on a daily basis.

Santorum, who just days ago led the President by one point in Rasmussen's polling,  now trails by four.
Romney now trails Obama by ten nationally, which would be astounding if it were supported by any other polling firm.

As I've said before, Rasmussen's sampling (and his "likely voter" screen) is heavily skewed toward Republicans. What these numbers show is what's happening in the Republican base, not in the broader electorate, because it's based on Rasmussen's belief that Democrats won't vote unless they are really unhappy with Obama. Bearing that in mind, we can see that Romney is losing the mantle of "most electable" among the base and Santorum is becoming the new favourite. Naturally, as the new favourite, he must be polling better than Romney. If not, then the Republican base would not be the dominant political force that Rasmussen believes it to be, and they definitely would not be wise and politically savvy geniuses that he "knows" they are.

Also in Rasmussen World, Obama has cracked the 50% approval barrier that is so important to people that think the nation would vote for any idiot over a President they disliked. These people are generally known as right-wing pundits and the fools who take their pronouncements as gospel.

51% now at least somewhat approve of Obama job performance, and 49% disapprove. 37% "strongly disapprove", and that number is dropping down into the range of Republican Party identification.

In Fox News polling (1110 RV including cell), Obama has a job approval of 48%, 45% disapprove, 7% undecided. While that's below the putatively magical 50% mark, it puts Obama above water into positive territory.
Obama leads Romney 47/42.
Obama leads Santorum 50/38.
Obama leads Paul 48/38.
Obama also defeats the hypothetical "white knight" candidate Jeb Bush 50/36. So much for that idea.

Another interesting bit of information comes in the question of how enthusiastic would the respondent be if a particular candidate won.

• In the "extremely enthusiastic" category, all of the Republican candidates score in the single digits with Romney leading at 9%. Obama scores 20% in this same category. 
• In the category of "Pleased" if that person won, Romney and Santorum both get 19%. This is only slightly worse than Obama's 21% pleased.
• In the category of "Scared" if that person won, Gingrich is the clear leader at 33%. Romney as President scares 20%, and Santorum 22%. Obama in a second term scares 27%. This kind of contradicts the wingnut narrative of a scary Obama losing to an imperfect, but not-scary, Republican candidate. Apparently, a 7% difference (at best) between the two options is enough to base an electoral strategy on.

So, if Obama wins we have 41% happy / 27% scared. If the Republican wins, we have 28% happy / 20% scared. That's the big divide in popular opinion that the Right hopes to capitalise on.
That 27% that is scared of Obama just happens to be identical to the "crazification factor" in the American electorate. Even during Bush's darkest hours, you could always find at least 27% of the electorate supporting him. And we are somehow supposed to let those people become the arbiters of an acceptable President.

Let's not forget the Republican primary race. 41% of likely Republican primary voters nationally think that "one or more of the Republican candidates" should drop out, and Ron Paul is the 'favourite' to be that person at 43%. Note to Ron Paul fans with poor reading skills: this means that a considerable number of Republican primary voters want Paul to drop out, not that they prefer him.

So Fox News polling isn't seeing Rasmussen's remarkable 10-point lead for Obama over Romney, nor are they seeing a close race between Obama and Santorum. Weird. It's almost as if Rasmussen is some kind of outlier pollster that nobody really takes seriously.

The PAC ads begin

This weekend, I saw my first Republican Super PAC ads on broadcast television. It was a pro-Romney ad that said Obama didn't create a single job as a community organiser, or a professor, or a senator. Romney is the guy who knows how to create jobs. He apparently just chooses not to.

My opinion has always been that the first side to employ campaign ads takes a huge psychological hit just by virtue of people hating campaign ads to begin with.

People get to be very good at tuning out campaign ads, so there is definitely a point of diminishing returns. With the use of TIVO and the highly-convenient "mute" button combined with the judicious use of the "channel" button, one can avoid them effectively. There is only a small window of opportunity before the reflexive defences kick in. Right now, the Democrats seem to be winning the narrative, and the polling supports that. We should be able to tell relatively soon how effective this advertising is based on polling numbers over the course of few weeks in markets where it's been employed. If there isn't significant movement, it would seem to me that advertising in general won't be very effective in the coming months. The Republicans are heavily relying on unlimited Super PAC donations allowing them to saturate the airwaves and coerce voters into voting for Romney by sheer force of will.

I think that the majority of the people have already made up their minds, and those that remain see it more as a personality contest. On the personality front, Obama wins over Romney. They can't make Obama scary. It was already tried, and nobody bought it before. At least, not enough people to make difference. So they have to make Romney the guy that you really like. Good luck with that, 1%.