Politics Daily

Half of Americans Approve of Obama's Handling of Libya

Bruce Drake — 2011-03-22T12:46:00+00:00

Filed under: Polls, Foreign Policy, Obama Administration, Poll Watch, Independents

President Obama's handling of Libya gets the approval of half of Americans who have an opinion on it (and about one-fifth do not), despite criticism from right, left and abroad, according to a CBS News poll conducted March 18-21. (Poll data here.) Critics say the administration waited too long to act or, once it did, took military action whose goals were not as defined as Obama had said they would be.

Fifty percent said they approved of Obama's handling of the situation, 29 percent disapproved, while 21 percent expressed no opinion.

Obama does better when it comes to ratings on his performance on Libya and other foreign policy matters than on some major domestic issues. The CBS poll found that Republicans, who uniformly give Obama low marks on domestic issues, particularly health care, the economy and the deficit, approve of his handling of the Libya situation by a 43 percent to 41 percent margin.

A CNN/Opinion Research poll, conducted March 18-20, found that 54 percent of those surveyed approved of Obama's handling of foreign affairs, and 50 percent agree with the way he's dealt with the Libyan crisis. By contrast, CNN's polling found that only 36 percent approved of Obama's handling of the deficit, 39 percent approved of his economic policy and 41 percent liked the way he was handling health care.

While the CBS poll found little change in Obama's overall job approval rating -- 49 percent approve and 41 percent disapprove -- there was a good sign for him in the fact that independents, who soured on him last year, approved of his performance by 46 percent to 39 percent, with the remainder undecided.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Democrats, Republicans, Independents Differ on Issues That Worry Them Most

Bruce Drake — 2011-03-21T11:51:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Environment, Crime, Health Care, Race Issues, Immigration, Polls, Poll Watch, Independents, Deficit, Jobs, Economy

The top five issues that Americans worry about the most would not surprise anyone -- the economy, federal spending and the deficit, availability and affordability of health care, unemployment and the Social Security system. But one polling snapshot zeroes in on the difference in emphasis that Republicans, Democrats and independents regard as the top issues.

For the overall population, 71 percent say they worry a great deal about the economy, 64 percent name federal spending and the deficit, 58 percent are concerned about health care, 57 percent fret about unemployment and 51 percent mention Social Security, according to a Gallup poll conducted March 3-6.

But looked at along party lines, federal spending tops the list for Republicans at 79 percent, with the economy a close second at 76 percent. The size and power of government is a major worry for 62 percent of Republicans, compared to 48 percent for the overall public. Illegal immigration is another issue higher on the list for Republicans (at 55 percent) than it is for the general public (42 percent).

Democrats put health care at the top of their list with 69 percent saying that's their top worry, followed by the economy at 64 percent, unemployment at 60 percent and Social Security at 53 percent.

Among independents, the order of concerns is: the economy (72 percent), federal spending (65 percent), health care (58 percent) and unemployment (55 percent).

The issue Americans worry about least is race relations, which only 16 percent call a top worry, with the environment second to last at 34 percent. In between, for the public at large, is availability and affordability of energy (46 percent), crime and violence (44 percent), illegal immigration (42 percent), hunger and homelessness (41 percent), possibility of a terrorist attack in the U.S. (40 percent) and drug use (40 percent).

Health care did not break into the ranks of top concerns for Republicans, and a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, conducted March 8-13, shows that it continues to be a polarizing issues, with Republicans strongly opposed to the year-old reform measure and Democrats strongly in support.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Poll Shows Faith in Government Plummets; Warning Signs for Republicans Emerge

Bruce Drake — 2011-03-15T11:11:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Polls, Obama Administration, Afghanistan, Poll Watch, Independents, Congress, Economy

While voters may have vented their anger at Washington in last year's elections and altered the balance of power, the public at large is no happier now with the way government is working, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted March 10-13.

Almost half of those surveyed -- 49 percent -- express uncertainty about "our system of government and how well it works" and what it portends for the future. Twenty-six percent said they were optimistic about how well the system of government would serve the nation and 23 percent were pessimistic, with 7 percent undecided.

The 26 percent who expressed optimism represented the lowest number in 35 years.

That compares to February 1999 when 54 percent described themselves as optimistic and 19 percent as pessimistic, with 27 percent uncertain and 1 percent undecided.

The Post/ABC finding comes on the heels of a Gallup poll conducted March 3-6 that showed the percentage of Americans who approved of the way Congress is doing its job dropping to 18 percent, after being in the low 20s in January and February.

Much of the sour outlook appears to stem from public perceptions of the economy, but there are also strong signs of disgruntlement with Republicans, who captured the House last November and strengthened their position in the Senate.

Fifty-three percent do not believe that the economy has begun to recover compared to 46 percent who think it has, with 1 percent undecided. While a majority still holds that view, it is an improvement over December when 57 percent said they saw no improvement.

Forty-nine percent said the economic stimulus program pushed through the last Congress by President Obama and the Democrats had no effect on the economy. Twenty-eight percent said it helped and 21 percent said it had hurt.

Fifty-five percent disapproved of Obama's handling of the economy compared to 43 percent who approved, with 2 percent undecided. That represented an uptick in the percentage of those who disapproved of the job Obama was doing on the economy, and his worst showing since last September.

But that was not necessarily good news for Republicans. Forty-six percent trusted Obama more than the Republicans to do a better job handling the economy compared to 34 percent who believed the Republicans would do a better job, with the remainder answering "both" or "neither."

Those surveyed said Obama represented their values more than the Republicans by a 46 percent to 41 percent margin, with 1 percent undecided. Forty-seven percent said Obama better understood the economic problems people were having than the Republicans, compared to 35 percent who said the Republicans understood better, with the remainder answering both or neither.

ABC polling analyst Gary Langer said, "The drop in trust to handle the economy has occurred chiefly among independents, now drawing away from the GOP after rallying to its side. As recently as January, 42 percent of independents preferred the Republicans in Congress over Obama to handle the economy. Today just 29 percent say the same, and there's been a rise in the number who volunteer that they don't trust either side."

Another possible factor in the overall gloom about government is the continuing war in Afghanistan. Sixty-four percent of Americans do not believe the war is worth fighting, a number that has been rising steadily since last April, when it stood at 52 percent.

Seventy-three percent said the U.S. should withdraw a substantial number of combat troops by this summer. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats held that view, as did 78 percent of independents. Fifty-six percent of Republicans, who have been more supportive than Democrats of the war effort, said the U.S. should withdraw troops.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Sarah Palin: Could She Run as an Independent or Third Party Candidate?

Suzi Parker — 2011-03-09T22:56:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, 2012 President, Woman Up, Independents, Conservatives, White House, 2012 Elections

Sarah Palin talks a lot about the tea party.

On Fox News last week, she said, "I find inspiration in tea party patriots [and] those with common sense who aren't playing a lot of games."

She could be considered the tea party's godmother. With her Sarah PAC and support for 2010 tea party candidates, Palin has generated a lot of good will, not to mention publicity, for a movement that began only two years ago. She also isn't afraid to attack popular Republicans such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Poll: Republican Push for Deep Budget Cuts Could Alienate Independents, Swing Voters

Bruce Drake — 2011-03-03T14:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Budget, Polls, Poll Watch, Independents, Deficit, Jobs, Tea Party, Economy

Republicans may be in a tenuous political position as they try to navigate between tea party adherents and conservatives who want deep reductions in federal spending, and independents and swing voters who don't share the same zeal, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted Feb. 24-28. (Wall Street Journal story; MSNBC "First Read" story; Poll data).

The poll found that 34 percent of Republicans, 33 percent of tea party movement supporters and 35 percent of voters who supported John McCain for president in 2008 say the top priority for them is scaling back spending and reducing the federal deficit.

However, key voting groups like independents, suburban women, seniors, and those in the 18-to-34 age group put much more emphasis on job creation and economic growth.

Forty percent of independents, 41 percent of suburban women, 35 percent of seniors and 39 percent of 18-to-34 Americans come down on the side of job creation and economic growth as the priority.

That compares to the 23 percent of independents, 24 percent of suburban women, 19 percent of seniors and 19 percent of those between 18 and 24 who say cutting spending and the deficit is most important.

Fifty-two percent in the poll said they were concerned that the Republicans in Congress will go too far in cutting programs to reduce the deficitand 51 percent say the same of tea party movement supporters on the Hill. Sixty-three percent are concerned that the Democrats will not push hard enough for spending cuts and 62 percent say the same about Obama.

The poll also tested public opinion on 26 different ways to reduce the deficit.

Most popular (supported by 81 percent) was a surtax on people making more than $1 million a year, followed by eliminating congressional earmarks (78 percent), cancelling funding for weapons systems the Pentagon says aren't needed (76 percent) and eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries (74 percent).

Least popular were cutting Medicaid funding (only 32 percent found that acceptable), cutting funding for Medicare (23 percent), cutting funding for kindergarten-to-high-school education (22 percent) and cutting Social Security (22 percent).

The remainder of those surveyed on each question answered "not sure."

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Americans Less Angry at Washington Now Than During 2010 Campaign, Poll Says

Bruce Drake — 2011-03-03T11:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Polls, Poll Watch, Independents, Tea Party

Although trust in government remains low, Americans seem to have cooled off since last year's political campaigns, with significantly fewer of them saying they are "angry" at Washington, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted Feb. 22- March 1.

Twenty-nine percent of those surveyed said they can trust government to do what is right just about always or most of the time -- an improvement over a year ago when the number was 22 percent, but still pretty negative. (Back in the early to mid-1960s, those believing they could trust government to do the right thing neared 80 percent.)

Twenty-four percent of Republicans said they trusted government always or most of the time, up from 13 percent last September; 14 percent of tea party adherents said they trusted government, up from 7 percent; and, 27 percent of independents trusted government, up from 20 percent. Democrats were the most like to say they trusted government, with 34 percent holding that view, a number unchanged from last year.

But only 14 percent described themselves as angry at government, down from 23 percent last September. Some of those angry people from last year moved into the "frustrated" with government category, which rose from 52 percent last September to 59 percent.

Twenty-two percent of all of those surveyed described themselves as "content" with the government, about the same number as last September.

Sixteen percent of Republicans described themselves as angry, down from 33 percent, and 28 percent of those who agree with the tea party movement still said they were angry -- down from 47 percent. Fifteen percent of independents were in the angry column, down from 27 percent. There wasn't much change among Democrats, since only 11 percent described themselves as angry last year, a number that is now 10 percent.

The "trust in government" measure unsurprisingly has always been a pretty good indicator of what happens in the political arena on Election Day.

"Periods of high distrust in government have corresponded with high turnover in Congress," the Pew study noted. "In general, when public trust in government declines steeply -- as it did in 1974, 1980 and in the early 1990s -- incumbents are more likely to lose and a larger number of seats usually change parties. In 2010, when trust reached one of its lowest levels in half a century, rivaling only the early '90s, 69 seats changed parties, the largest total ever, with Republicans gaining 66 seats while Democrats gained only 3 seats. Similarly, 58 incumbents lost in the primary or general elections that year."

Now that the Republicans control the House and have stronger numbers in the Senate, the issue of whether Americans want their representatives to stick to principles or be willing to compromise has taken on more significance.

Pew found little change in the attitude of Americans on this question since last year, with 54 percent preferring that elected officials stick to their positions compared to 40 percent who want them to make compromises with people with whom they disagree. Seven percent answered "neither," "both," or that they didn't know. Republicans took the hardest line on sticking to positions with 63 percent in that corner, compared to 48 percent of Democrats. Fifty-three percent of independents preferred lawmakers who stuck to their positions.

Pew's findings tended to be somewhat different than sentiments found in some Gallup polls. For instance, on the specific issue of the budget and efforts to avoid a government shutdown, a Feb. 22 Gallup poll found that 60 percent of those surveyed want Democrats and Republicans to agree to a budget compromise, compared to 32 percent who say each side should hold out for the plan they want. Eight percent had no opinion.

Right after the elections last November, Gallup found that by 47 percent to 27 percent Americans overall generally believe it is more important to find areas of compromise than sticking to beliefs. The remaining 24 percent fall into a sort of neutral territory. (Gallup had asked those surveyed to use a scale of 1 to 5 to rate the choices, with the high number representing "more important to stick to beliefs" and the low one indicating it is more important to compromise.)

In Pew's new poll, it framed that question by asking respondents whether they "like elected officials who make compromises with people they disagree with" or "like elected officials who stick to their positions."

Gallup got at the question by asking: "Where would you rate yourself on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means it is more important for political leaders to compromise in order to get things done, and 5 means it is more important for leaders to stick to their beliefs even if little gets done."

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Most Americans Are Moderates -- and Thus Invisible

Mary C. Curtis — 2011-03-02T23:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Obama Administration, 2012 President, Woman Up, Independents, 2010 Elections, Michelle Obama, Tea Party, Economy, Barack Obama, 2012 Elections

Most Americans want a compromise on the budget standoff, the polls say. They want strict controls to halt illegal immigration, but they want lawmakers to keep their hands off the 14^th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil, including those whose parents are on that soil illegally. Americans hurting the most are the ones who see hope ahead, not surprising since they have the most to lose when hope is gone.

According to polls that measure such things, Americans want their politicians to work together and to listen to the voices and opinions of the people, including people with differing views on solutions to the nation's problems. If, after a short-term solution expires, the government shuts down because of disagreement on the federal budget, the American people would blame congressional Republicans and the Obama administration equally, sensing not principled opposition but rather, political gamesmanship.

When it comes to social issues as political cudgels, gay marriage doesn't appear to be as divisive as it was just a few years ago, as Americans, including young evangelicals, are easing their opposition to such unions.

So what's with all the yelling, the lines drawn in the sand?

In Wisconsin, protesters in support of maintaining bargaining rights for public-sector unions have moved into the Statehouse, as Democratic senators moved out. Gov. Scott Walker is warning of layoffs when he's not taking calls from a faux David Koch. And an activist website has gummed up the works with its own protest of Walker's actions.

Meanwhile, a new poll says that though they question the power of labor unions, most Americans oppose taking away some of the collective bargaining rights of public-employee unions, and almost as many oppose cutting the pay or benefits of those workers.

These fights are framed in meanness. It always seems to come down to working people -- worried about falling further behind -- fighting one another over scraps.

This push and pull of common-sense reflection vs. loud bickering has invaded quarters once left alone. Michelle Obama can't get consensus for a benign platform of encouraging healthy eating and exercise; she's attacked by Sarah Palin, Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rush Limbaugh, who won't be satisfied until she subsists on tree bark and spring water. (His comparing her unfavorably to Sports Illustrated swimsuit models is just bizarre, as if he'd have a chance with either.)

Mike Huckabee, probable GOP presidential hopeful, would get credit for defending the first lady's initiative if he had not erroneously claimed that her husband, President Obama, was raised in Kenya.

One wonders how the first lady's support of military families will be turned into a negative, though I have confidence that someone will find a way.

But even as the volume is turned up and self-interest becomes paramount, those often characterized as the most intransigent can see all sides.

At an event headlined by the above-mentioned congresswoman from Minnesota, it was clear that true believers talk softly with nuance when given the chance. In the extremely red, GOP-controlled state of South Carolina, at a recent meeting of the S.C. Federation of Republican Women in Columbia, Bachmann was greeted like a rock star. As she ticked off the programs she had just voted against funding -- NPR, cap and trade and Planned Parenthood -- applause filled the room.

In conversations afterward, though, tea party and GOP activists expressed reservations about, for example, her emphasis on social issues. "I'm not like most Southerners that way," one woman told me, sounding very much like another Southern woman I had just talked with who had wished Republicans would talk less about faith-based political policies.

Another woman, who had worked in government before retiring, admitted -- quietly -- she thought that government could sometimes be a force for good. She had seen it work, she told me. Though she thought her views would be heresy in that room, her views support polls that show Americans want to reduce spending, but don't want to cut programs. That's a contradiction, to be sure, but no one ever said the logic reigns when the choices are tough.

People who loved Bachmann's energy were not yet convinced she should run for president in 2012. "I want to hear more" was something I heard a lot. Their ambivalence didn't negate the earlier cheers in the big room for sure-fire, red-meat lines. But it made the story more complicated than the usual headline or cable-show rant.

As the nonstop, never-ending campaign heats up from now until forever, will men and women speaking of compromise in reasonable tones drown out the hard-line partisans on every side? It will be up to the voters and the candidates they choose to reward and punish. In the 2010 midterms, the middle was the worst place to stake a claim, though every poll indicates that's where most Americans live.

Talk about a contradiction.

Click here to follow Mary C. Curtis on Twitter.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Moderates Are Not Independents, and Other Clues to Moves by Obama, GOP

Jill Lawrence — 2011-02-24T22:12:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Obama Administration, 2012 President, Independents, Liberals, Moderates, Deficit, Analysis, 2012 Elections

If you want to understand why President Barack Obama and opposition Republicans are acting the way they are, a new study provides some clues. Bottom line: Democrats need huge numbers of moderates to win national elections, while Republicans can rely a lot more on their conservative base.

Moderates are "the true presidential kingmakers," political scientists William Galston and Elaine Kamarck write in their study for the centrist Democratic think tank, Third Way. Since 1980, the pair say, no Democrat has been elected president without winning at least 60 percent of the moderate vote, accounting for at least half their total vote.

Republicans can rely more on conservatives because there are more conservatives in the electorate - an average of 33 percent in the past 30 years, as opposed to 20 percent self-described liberals. Yet the biggest share of voters by far is the 47 percent who call themselves moderates.

Using years of data from Gallup, Pew and other polling outfits, Kamarck and Galston found that moderates are akin to liberals on issues such as abortion and gay rights. But as a group they are more skeptical about the size and reach of government and more likely to believe it is not the government's job to reduce the income gap between rich and poor. They are also much more likely than liberals to favor tax cuts over public investments as a way to strengthen the economy, and they are more interested than liberals in reducing the deficit.

One of the most interesting points the authors make is that moderates and independents, often lumped together, are quite different. Most independents - 75 percent - lean toward one party or the other, and overall, the group has a "conservative tilt," Galston and Kamarck found.

The ideology gap between moderates and independents is clear at the White House level. Moderates delivered more than half their votes to Democrats in six out of the last nine presidential elections. Independents did so just once, in 2008 for Obama.

The findings illuminate the political logic behind some recent moves on both sides. Obama has signed a tax-cut bill, proposed a five-year freeze on some domestic spending and reached out to the business community. Republicans are trying to cut off federal money to public broadcasting, the arts and Planned Parenthood and (in Wisconsin) are trying to throw out most collective bargaining rights for unionized public employees.

Galston and Kamarck say the impact of moderates is muted in the political process, to the detriment of Democrats. They suggest that congressional districts be drawn by non-partisan commissions and that primaries be more open, ideally non-partisan with the top two finishers competing in the general election.

The pair also said they'd be open to primaries on a single day, to make them a more attention-grabbing event. Galston, asked about compulsory voting, said he'd like to see a few states experiment with treating voting like jury duty -- compulsory, and you pay a fine if you don't show up.

Jamelle Bouie, blogging at the liberal American Prospect, said the argument that moderates don't have enough influence ignores the content of legislation in the last two years. Citing the Affordable Care Act, which became less liberal as it moved through Congress, Bouie argued that "partisans are disadvantaged in the governing process."

That may apply more to liberals than conservatives. Partisan Republicans do not seem particularly disadvantaged these days -- House and Senate Republicans are for the most part doing their bidding. That may be because, as the numbers show, there is little downside for GOP leaders to stoke their base. By contrast, Obama and Democrats must show caution toward their liberal base or risk alienating the moderates who are vital to their coalition.

Follow Jill Lawrence on Facebook and Twitter

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Most Americans Want a Budget Compromise, but Favor GOP on Deeper Cuts

Bruce Drake — 2011-02-24T10:51:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Budget, Polls, Obama Administration, Poll Watch, Independents, Deficit

A clear majority of Americans -- including a plurality of Republicans -- want both parties to compromise on the federal budget in order to avoid a government shutdown, but nearly half say that the proposals put forward by President Obama and congressional Democrats don't go far enough in cutting spending, according to a Gallup poll conducted Feb. 22.

Sixty percent of those surveyed want Democrats and Republicans to agree to a budget compromise, compared to 32 percent who say each side should hold out for the plan they want. Eight percent had no opinion.

Democrats favor compromise over digging in on a plan by a 70 percent to 23 percent margin, while Republicans come down more narrowly on the side of compromise, by 49 percent to 42 percent. Independents, who have made clear in many polls that they have no taste for political gridlock, favor compromise over holding out by a 61 percent to 32 percent margin.

The stopgap funding measure currently keeping government in business runs out March 4. Failure to extend it, or adopt a new budget, would trigger a shutdown of many government operations.

Republicans appear to hold the upper hand when it comes to being more aggressive on spending cuts, with 48 percent saying that the budget proposals of Obama and the Democrats do not go far enough in cutting federal spending. Thirty-seven percent say the Republican proposals do not go far enough. Twenty-five percent say the Republican proposals, which include a $61 billion cut in this year's spending, go too far.

Unsurprisingly, 53 percent of Democrats say the Republicans' proposed cuts go too far. Forty-five percent of Republicans say the cuts proposed by their own party do not go far enough while 40 percent say they are about right. Sixty-two percent of Democrats consider their party's proposals to be about right.

Fifty-two percent of independents say the Democrats' budget proposals don't go far enough and a plurality, 39 percent, say the same of the Republicans.

"Public opinion largely supports Republicans' insistence on a plan that makes significant cuts in government spending, and this could put pressure on Democrats to meet them more than halfway," Gallup said. "At the same time, it may strengthen Democrats' power to bargain for fewer cuts as part of a compromise plan to avoid a government shutdown."

However, the poll shows no clear edge for either party when it comes to who the public thinks is doing a better job when it comes to reaching agreement on a new budget. Forty-two percent say it is the Republicans, compared to 39 percent who side with the Democrats. Three percent answered "both equally" and 16 percent had no opinion. Independents favored the Republicans by 37 percent to 33 percent, with the rest answering "both" or having no opinion.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Poll Ratings Show Some Gains in Key States, but He's Not Out of the Woods

Bruce Drake — 2011-02-17T06:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Polls, 2012 President, Poll Watch, Independents, 2010 Elections, Barack Obama

During last year's elections, when polls were showing things headed south for many Democrats in key battleground states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, they also included warning signs for President Obama and his reelection chances in 2012.

In a new set of polls, Obama's numbers in those two swing states, which were looking troublesome last summer, have improved, just as his standings in national polls have risen recently. However, that rebound does not return him to the point where it could be said he has regained the kind of strength he had in 2008.

Surveys this month and last by Quinnipiac University show Obama with his most positive marks in Pennsylvania since July 2009 and improved numbers in the key swing state of Ohio. However, his job approval numbers remain stuck just below 50 percent in the pivotal state of Florida, and voters there are divided on whether he deserves reelection.

One of the key elements in last year's drop in support for Obama and the Democrats was the defection of independents, who had been strongly in their corner in 2008. The Quinnipiac polls produced mixed results for Obama on this front with his support among independents picking up in Pennsylvania, but not showing improvement in Ohio and Florida.

Here's a round-up of the trends in the three states:

Pennsylvania

When Quinnipiac polled the state last July, independents disapproved of the job Obama was doing by a 53 percent to 40 percent margin with 8 percent undecided, (the numbers are rounded up). When Obama carried the state by 54 percent to 44 percent in 2008, exit polls showed independents were behind him by 58 percent to 39 percent, with 3 percent not disclosing their preferences.

Obama's poor showing in the July poll prompted Quinnipiac to say at the time, "When a politician's approval rating is down 13 points among independent voters, that is generally a sign of political vulnerability." Voters overall said by a 6 point margin that Obama didn't deserve a second term which, Quinnipiac said, "also should make the White House nervous, especially since Pennsylvania has not voted Republican for president since 1988."

Things look better for Obama in the latest Quinnipiac survey, conducted Feb. 8-14. Fifty-one percent approve of the job he is doing compared to 44 percent who do not, with 5 percent undecided. That's his highest mark since July 2009 when the percentage of those who approved stood at 56 percent.

The improvement was driven by a turnaround among independents who approved of his performance by a 50 percent to 46 percent margin, with 4 percent undecided, compared to last December when 42 percent disapproved and 41 percent approved, with 17 percent undecided. Women in particular gave Obama high marks in the new poll, approving of his performance by a 55 percent to 39 percent margin, with 5 percent undecided, while men are roughly split in their view of him.

Poll Shows Big Partisan Divides on Obama's Handling of Key Issues

Bruce Drake — 2011-02-09T13:50:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Polls, Obama Administration, Poll Watch, Independents, Deficit, Economy, Health Care Reform, Barack Obama

A Gallup study released last week reported that President Obama was a far more polarizing force during his second year in office compared to any chief executive at that point in their terms since 1953 (the poll measured the gap between the approval ratings he got from Democrats and Republicans). Now, a new Gallup poll puts some flesh on the bones of that overall finding by showing the partisan gaps that exist on Obama's handling of specific issues.

Health care was the most polarizing issue, with a 61-point gap between Democrats who approved of Obama's performance and Republicans who didn't, according to the poll conducted Feb. 2-5.

But the economy and foreign affairs were close behind in terms of the approval gap between Democrats and Republicans (59 percent and 56 percent, respectively).

Colorado GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams, 'Tired of the Nuts,' Steps Down

Sandra Fish — 2011-02-08T15:40:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Independents, 2010 Elections, Tea Party, 2012 Elections

Saying he's "tired of the nuts who have no grasp of what the state party's role is," Colorado Republican Chairman Dick Wadhams won't run for re-election, setting up a potential free-for-all for the top job in one of the few states where GOP results were mixed in the 2010 midterms.

The departure of Wadhams, a political fixture in what's become a purple state, could mean trouble for the GOP going into the 2012 presidential election. With tea party activists fired up to take control of the party operations, despite failures of their annointed candidates in the U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races, Wadhams cautioned the party stands the chance of losing Colorado's large unaffiliated voter base.

Dan Maes, the GOP candidate for governor this past November, won only 11 percent of the vote after former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo bolted to a third party to run against him. Democrat John Hickenlooper, then Denver mayor, won the governor's seat handily as Republicans devolved into a nasty battle over which candidate to support. Some criticized Wadhams for not vetting candidates such as the unknown Maes, while others complained that the party chairman acted against grassroots activists who supported Maes and others backed by the tea party.

That rift spilled over into the often-overlooked battle for state party chair.

State Sen. Ted Harvey announced plans to challenge Wadhams in the March election, saying he would bring "better talent, funding and conservative leadership than we have had in the race." Tancredo, who abandoned the American Constitution Party after the election to return to the GOP, also spoke out against Wadhams being elected to a third term as party chairman.

Meanwhile, Maes referred to Harvey as a "traitor" who assisted the "old guard mentality" (i.e., Tancredo) in a recent Facebook post.

Wadhams said he expected to win re-election, but had tired of "those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner." In an e-mail to state central committee members, he cautioned against letting the party be taken over by those who claim the banner of true conservatives, writing that "the ability of Colorado Republicans to win and retain the votes of hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated swing voters in 2012 will be severely undermined."

Indeed, unaffiliated voters delivered a narrow November victory to incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet over tea party-backed GOP challenger Ken Buck. Those voters make up about one-third of the state's voting base, and also helped Barack Obama win the state in 2008.

"Dick is undoubtedly correct that winning unaffiliated voters is the key to winning a statewide majority," Colorado conservative blogger Joshua Sharf wrote. "As is true for both parties, winning without your base, or with only your base, isn't possible."

What happens next in Colorado will determine the strength of the tea party activists and their allies in the far right of the party. GOP primary challenges from the right in the past often set the stage for Democratic victories, with the Democrats selecting moderate candidates and creating organizations outside the party to support their candidates. And despite losses in the Senate and governor's races, the GOP did win back two U.S. House seats, two statewide elected offices and a majority in the state House in the 2010 election.

More candidates are likely to enter the GOP chairman's race with Wadhams' exit -- and the race may be a true test of the old guard vs. the new activists.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Poll: Democrats and Republicans Strongly Favor Alternative Energy Incentives, Tax Overhaul

Bruce Drake — 2011-02-02T14:12:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Health Care, Guns, Taxes, Immigration, Polls, Trade, Energy, Afghanistan, Poll Watch, Independents, Congress

One of the big questions for Congress in 2011, now that Republicans control the House while Democrats still hold the reins in the Senate, is what issues both parties might be able to jointly address.

While public opinion is not always the determining factor, given the politics of Capitol Hill, two actions on which there is a good amount of bipartisan agreement would be to pass a bill providing incentives to develop alt ernative energy and an overhaul of the tax code, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Jan. 14-16.

Gallup asked those surveyed about eight possible actions Congress could take this year (although, for some reason, the list did not include health care reform or efforts to repeal it).

The five actions that got majority support were doing something to encourage alternative energy solutions (83 percent), revamping the tax code (76 percent), speeding up the withdrawal from Afghanistan (72 percent), passing an energy bill expanding drilling and exploration for oil and gas (65 percent) and approving a free-trade agreement with South Korea (53 percent).

Passing stronger gun control laws, as some lawmakers proposed after the Arizona shooting tragedy, fell just short of a majority at 49 percent. Two possible actions regarding immigration -- taking steps to deny automatic citizenship to children born to illegal immigrant parents in the U.S. or providing a path to legal status for those here illegally -- ranked last, at 44 percent and 43 percent, respectively.

When it comes to how the results play out along partisan lines, the action where the results were the most similar was for overhauling the federal tax code, with support for that in the mid-to-high 70s for Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.

There is not as much agreement on passing an alternative energy bill, but it still gets decisive majorities across the political board. Ninety-three percent of Democrats favor action on this issue, compared to 82 percent of independents and 75 percent of Republicans.

The complication, of course, is that major energy legislation tends to be tied to other more contentious proposals, as "cap and trade" was last year. If a proposal for encouraging alternative energy was part of such a bigger bill, the other issues could sink it.

Some of the biggest Democratic-Republican divisions were on gun control laws and proposals to provide a path to legal status for unauthorized immigrants. Sixty-eight percent of Democrats favored strong gun control laws compared to 30 percent of Republicans, and 64 percent of Democrats supported giving illegals a path to legal status, compared to only 27 percent of Republicans.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The State of Our Union's Political Civility: Many Are Hungry for More

Jeffrey Weiss — 2011-01-23T23:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, John McCain, State of the Union, Culture, Independents, Congress, Conservatives, Barack Obama, Arizona Shooting

Does "the American people" want President Obama to make a case for political civility in his State of the Union address?

Of course not. Despite the too-common political rhetoric, "American people" is a plural, not a singular, noun. There's no point of even slight controversy about which all 300 million of us stand as one. And even if I restate the question with the proper plural-noun grammar - "Do the American people...?" - I am not going to pretend that there's an unarguable answer for a majority.

But there is some evidence that a lot of us would not mind another nod from the president in the direction of civil discourse.

Obama State of the Union Address: What Conservatives Would Like to Hear

Matt Lewis — 2011-01-22T17:25:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, State of the Union, Obama Administration, Independents, Congress, Deficit, Matt Lewis and the News

When President Obama delivers his upcoming State of the Union address, he will be speaking for the first time to an audience in the Capitol with more Republicans than Democrats. Obama may not like this -- he may have tried in vain to prevent it -- but the new reality in Congress has already been good to him.

On Nov. 3, 2010, the day Americans went to the polls and changed 63 House districts from Democrat to Republican, Obama's job approval rating was around 45 percent. After a lame duck session in which Obama negotiated on a variety of issues not with outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi but with incoming Speaker John Boehner -- most notably, to keep the current tax rate intact -- his job approval rating has ranged from the low to mid-50s.

Democrat Susan Bysiewicz to Run for Joe Lieberman's Senate Seat

Politics Daily Staff — 2011-01-18T15:25:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Democrats, Independents, 2012 Elections

Democrat Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut's former secretary of state, announced Tuesday she will run for the U.S. Senate in 2012, the first candidate to enter what is likely to be a crowded field seeking the seat held by four-term Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

In making her announcement, Bysiewicz, 49, charged that Lieberman has lost touch with Connecticut residents, saying he traveled across the country in fall 2008 on behalf of Republican presidential candidate John McCain while the state was mired in the economic recession, the Hartford Courant reported.

"I will be a senator focused on listening to my constituents, to visiting as many towns as I could possibly visit and hearing directly from the people,'' she said. "I [always] got my best ideas from my constituents...It's important to continue to keep in close touch with the voters in this state.''

Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is to make an announcement on his re-election plans tomorrow in Connecticut, Politico reported.

"After many thoughtful conversations with family and friends over the last several months, Sen. Lieberman made a decision about his future over the holidays which he plans to announce on Wednesday," said Erika Masonhall, a Lieberman spokeswoman who declined to comment further.

Besides Lieberman, other possible Senate candidates include Republican Linda McMahon, who lost her Senate bid in 2010 to Richard Blumenthal, and U.S. Reps. Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney, both Democrats, the Courant said.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Most Americans Want Obama, GOP to Work Together but Partisan Split Remains

Bruce Drake — 2011-01-13T13:12:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Polls, Obama Administration, Poll Watch, Independents, Congress, Barack Obama

A big majority of Americans want President Obama and GOP congressional leaders to work together to solve the nation's problems, but an equally large percentage of Republicans -- particularly those who say they agree with the tea party movement -- want their leaders to stand up to Obama rather than compromise, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted Jan. 5-9.

The survey was largely completed before the tragic shootings in Arizona and the subsequent calls by Obama and other political leaders for unity and a restoration of civility in public life.

Sixty-one percent of those surveyed said they wanted to see Republicans work with Obama while 33 percent believe GOP leaders should stand up to the president, with 6 percent undecided. Sixty-five percent want Obama to work with the Republicans while 28 percent say he should stand up to them, with 7 percent undecided.

Number of Americans Who Say They Are Democrats Ties 22 Year Low

Bruce Drake — 2011-01-05T16:05:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Polls, Poll Watch, Independents

The fallen fortunes of the Democrats as the Republicans take control of the House and start the Senate session in a strengthened position is underlined by Gallup poll numbers that find the percentage of Americans who identify with the party has fallen to its lowest point in the 22 years.

Gallup says that in 2010 an average of 31 percent of Americans said they were Democrats, a number the party last hit in 1991. That's a five point drop from 2008 when Democrats notched their 22-year high of 36 percent.

The number of those identifying as Democrats still slightly outnumber those calling themselves Republicans. Twenty-nine percent identified themselves with the GOP in Gallup's surveys.

Those identifying themselves as independents numbered 38 percent, up from 36 percent two years ago. But the advantage Democrats have enjoyed among independents has shrunk. When Gallup combines independents that lean towards one party or another with those that identify with each party, the Democratic edge is a bare 45 percent to 44 percent, its smallest margin over the GOP since 2003. In 2008, Democrats had a 52 percent to 40 percent lead over Republican when independent leaners were included on both sides.

Gallup's conclusion from these findings is that while 2010 was a bad year for the Democrats, the Republicans did not make much of a gain when it came to increasing the party's core.

"Instead, the major movement in American politics since 2008 seems to be away from the Democratic Party and toward independent political status, rather than alignment with the GOP," Gallup said. "Still, the Republican Party appeared to capitalize on many independents' frustration with the majority Democratic Party, in much the same way the Democrats capitalized on independents' frustration with the Republicans between 2006 and 2008."

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

'No Labels' Wants to Deliver on Public's Cry for Change, but Will It Work?

Linda Killian — 2010-12-14T23:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Tea Party

NEW YORK - At the rollout for No Labels at Columbia University on Monday, one of the group's founders called the event "our little Woodstock of democracy." But the well- organized event, with its national media coverage, roster of top political names like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, and media heavyweights like David Gergen and Joe Scarborough, felt like anything but Woodstock.

No Labels may be a protest movement of sorts (if you are the tea party or MoveOn.org or even the Republican or Democratic parties) but it's not exactly a radical idea the group is pushing.

If recent polls are correct, the message No Labels is espousing is exactly what a majority of Americans, who are fed up with both parties, say they want from their government.

While No Labels would like to counter some of the influence of the two political parties, its founders insist they are not trying to found a third or independent party. No Labels wants to reform the system from within.

Those founders, an extremely politically well-connected and experienced bunch, are seeking to reform the political culture and support candidates and ideas that reflect bipartisanship, civility and centrist solutions to the nation's problems. And they want to do it in a conventional way - by raising money, organizing voters and creating a political action committee to support candidates they like. They have an initial budget of $1 million, which should help.

The group's founders are far from political neophytes. Nancy Jacobson is a longtime Democratic fundraiser who worked for Gary Hart, Al Gore and Evan Bayh, the Democratic National Committee and on Bill Clinton's campaigns. Her husband is Mark Penn, chief strategist for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Mark McKinnon was a senior adviser to former President George W. Bush and to Sen. John McCain during his 2008 presidential run.

Jonathan Cowan, also a founder and organizer, told those in attendance for the New York kickoff that when elected officials "start hearing from you, that will change the political dynamic." Cowan is the president and co-founder of Third Way, a moderate think tank in Washington that promotes the same kind of goals as No Labels, and he served in the Clinton administration.

'No Labels' Speaker David Gergen in NYC: 'The Country Is on the Edge'

Luisita Lopez Torregrosa — 2010-12-11T21:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Media, Michael Bloomberg, Culture, Independents, Moderates, 2012 Elections

NEW YORK - More than a thousand Democrats, Republicans and independents converged on New York City on Monday to launch a national political organization to bring together Americans and put an end to damaging partisanship and divisive labels.

Aptly, it's called "No Labels. Not Left. Not Right. Forward."

From as far as Oregon and Colorado, Arkansas and Michigan, No Labels enthusiasts descended on New York City and filled a large hall at Columbia University to hear No Labels' founding leaders and guest speakers summon Americans to form a grassroots movement to unify the nation and support moderate politicians of all parties.

David Gergen, the political strategist and former top aide to several Democratic and Republican presidents, boiled down the crisis of polarization in the nation, saying that partisanship and special interests continually block what must be done in government, like energy and education reform, issues that have been at the forefront of the nation's agendas for 30 to 40 years.

"All these problems are coming at us at once,'' he said about the current political climate. "We deal with them now,'' he said, or risk going down as a nation. "The country is on the edge."

On the same panel -- "Hyperpartisanship in America'' -- Joe Scarborough, former GOP congressman and now anchor of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC, said that unless the Democrats and Republicans repair the chasm that divides them, independent third-party candidates will start winning. "It is inevitable," he said, "if both parties continue doing what they've been doing."

Retiring Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, one of the major backers of the No Labels movement, didn't quite agree that partisanship will lead to a third party, but said he foresaw a "period of churning," with power going back and forth from one major party to the other.

Wrapping up the morning session at the conference, Bayh urged the audience and Americans across the nation to "join the raging center."

No Labels, which plans to grow with online individual donations, envisions a nationwide movement mobilized by citizen chapters in all 435 congressional districts. Supporters are urged to hold town halls and "meetups" at private homes. Driven in part by the success of the conservative tea party movement and wide political divisions in Washington and across the nation, a core of centrist activists, working with an initial $1 million budget, are geared up to shape chapters in all 50 states and build a movement of a million participants who will work to exert a moderating influence on elected officials and candidates.

"The driving rationale for No Labels is that we know there are millions of Americans who are sick of the hyper-partisanship in Washington,'' Mark McKinnon, an Austin-based Republican political adviser who is one of the group's founders, told me.

"We are not the tea party, and we are not MoveOn,'' said McKinnon, who worked in the campaigns of George W. Bush and John McCain. "We are just a passionate band of citizens dedicated to a more civil dialogue and hope to be a microphone to amplify the voices of millions of Americans from the vast middle of America who feel like they aren't being heard."

On Monday, they unveiled their movement at a daylong convention-style National Founder's Meeting here at the Alfred Lerner Hall at Columbia. With such a prominent site, in the largest media market in the nation, No Labels organizers anticipated heavy media attention to help them get their message out there.

To that end, they enlisted a glittering list of political celebrities and marquee names, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, an independent; Sen. Bayh; Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York; Scarborough; and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat.

Those were not the only flashy names. Altogether some two dozen high-profile figures from the news media, the cable talk shows and electoral politics appeared on stage, answered questions and participated in panel discussions on such issues as electoral reform in America.

In a celebratory atmosphere, with some of the hoopla of national political conventions, the morning-to-afternoon program included a rousing musical number performed by the orange-shirted No Labels staff of some two dozen young people rapping and bouncing on stage to the audience's rhythmic clapping. The Senegalese-American rapper star AKON was scheduled to perform the "No Labels Anthem.''

It is probably no coincidence that Bloomberg, the billionaire media mogul, was among the best-known participants. He had to have endeared himself to the No Labels group with his blunt speech in Brooklyn on Wednesday criticizing the federal government's handling of the economy and saying that elected officials in Washington put partisan bickering above economic growth. His speech intensified speculation here that he might run for president as an independent in 2012, speculation he deflated on "Meet the Press" on Sunday when he categorically denied he would run for president.

No Labels, which is a 504 (c) 4 organization and requires donors to report contributions to the IRS, will endorse and perhaps help finance candidates in party primaries but not in national elections.

"This is a movement and not a party," McKinnon said when asked if the group would endorse a moderate like Bloomberg. "And this is not a stalking horse for a Michael Bloomberg independent candidacy."

Far from being in a position to propel or empower a potential presidential candidate, No Labels is a political start-up. The idea surfaced a year ago, just about the time that the Republican tea party candidate Scott Brown shocked the political world by winning Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts.

Interesting, too, looking at the political backgrounds of the organizers of No Labels, there is an inescapable connection to the Clintons. Several worked in Bill Clinton's presidential campaigns and in his administration. Some also worked in Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

No Labels' founder and prime mover, Nancy Jacobson, is a longtime fundraiser, creator of the Women's Leadership Forum and well-known Washington hostess. Jacobson, a political science major at Syracuse who earned her political stripes in Gary Hart's failed presidential campaign in 1984, has worked for Bayh for 15 years, was an adviser in the presidential campaign of Bill Clinton and finance chair of the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Leadership Council under President Clinton.

Jacobson joined Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign as a senior adviser in 2007. Not insignificantly, she is the wife of Mark Penn, the Democratic pollster and prominent political consultant who managed Hillary Clinton's campaign until he resigned under fire. The couple is known for their dinners for powerful Democrats, journalists and other Washington figures at their Georgetown home.

Besides Jacobson and McKinnon, who like all founding leaders work as volunteers, the leaders of No Labels include John Avlon, the author of "Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America"; Kiki McLean, a former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign; Lisa Borders, the former president of the Atlanta City Council; and Bill Galston, a domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the School of Public Policy of the University of Maryland.

Despite such heavy hitters, McKinnon said, "There is no hierarchy" in No Labels. "Citizens are organizing themselves in all 50 states. But they are doing so of their own accord with very little direction from us."

For a fledging political group operating on a shoe string, it certainly trumpets a far-reaching vision.

"No Labels will organize, energize and mobilize the masses of Americans who feel disenfranchised by today's hyper-partisan political gridlock,'' says its mission statement. "It's hard to find politicians anymore who are genuinely willing to work across party lines to solve problems. This organization aims to change that.''

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Politics Daily

Half of Americans Approve of Obama's Handling of Libya

Democrats, Republicans, Independents Differ on Issues That Worry Them Most

Poll Shows Faith in Government Plummets; Warning Signs for Republicans Emerge

Sarah Palin: Could She Run as an Independent or Third Party Candidate?

Related Stories

Poll: Republican Push for Deep Budget Cuts Could Alienate Independents, Swing Voters

Americans Less Angry at Washington Now Than During 2010 Campaign, Poll Says

Most Americans Are Moderates -- and Thus Invisible

Moderates Are Not Independents, and Other Clues to Moves by Obama, GOP

Most Americans Want a Budget Compromise, but Favor GOP on Deeper Cuts

Obama Poll Ratings Show Some Gains in Key States, but He's Not Out of the Woods

Related Stories

Poll Shows Big Partisan Divides on Obama's Handling of Key Issues

Related Stories

Colorado GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams, 'Tired of the Nuts,' Steps Down

Poll: Democrats and Republicans Strongly Favor Alternative Energy Incentives, Tax Overhaul

The State of Our Union's Political Civility: Many Are Hungry for More

Related Stories

Obama State of the Union Address: What Conservatives Would Like to Hear

Related Stories

Democrat Susan Bysiewicz to Run for Joe Lieberman's Senate Seat

Most Americans Want Obama, GOP to Work Together but Partisan Split Remains

Related Stories

Number of Americans Who Say They Are Democrats Ties 22 Year Low

'No Labels' Wants to Deliver on Public's Cry for Change, but Will It Work?

Related Stories

'No Labels' Speaker David Gergen in NYC: 'The Country Is on the Edge'